Browsing this Thread:
1 Anonymous Users
|
Re: Power Lines in JC
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
Quote:
Frank_M wrote: So, basically, your idea of an enterntaining discussion is your own monolgue? Quote: LimpiarElSucio wrote: I gladly admit that I do attempt to use arithmetic, and I see nothing wrong with it. I tell you more, - I think it is wrong not to use arithmetic, when you talk about budget and things like that. As for the "oversimplify", - I do not think so. Some things are simple. Like, things that can't last forever - won't. Pyramids fail. And so on. Quote: LimpiarElSucio wrote: So, I offer you logic and numbers, and respond with a personal attack. And, - the best part, - the attack implies that I follow some script from Koch brothers, - in the very same sentence where you appeal to authority instead of just trying to refute my arguments! Perfect. You must be one of those who proclaim that they are the party of intellectuals. As for the econom book, - I will gladly buy one. Which one would you recommend? Of course, you do understand that I do not want to buy some pseudo-science BS that covers it by using the smart-sounding words like "marginal cost" and such. I want to read a book from someone who can prove that he understands the economy. And there is only one way to do it, - he should be able to predict some things. This is what Science is all about, right? - building a model of reality that allows you to predict what will happen. I mean, nothing like this disaster:  Quote: LimpiarElSucio wrote: First, again, personal attack. Man, what did they do to you that you can't maintain a decent conversation without resorting to this? Second, the fact that I am against being forced to help others, - does not mean that I am against helping others. Is this not clear? Well, there was this guy in russian-speaking forum who explained it this way: "I am against rape but it does not mean that I am against sex". So, trying to get on a high horse of someone-who-cares is a pure demagogery on your part. Have you no decency sir? Third, I am not sure why you call that "shitty politburo state". I know why I do think so. But, from YOUR point of view, - what did they do wrong? Guaranteed pensions? You should be in avor of those. Free government medicine for all? Government-run schools where they teach government-approved Good Thoughts?
Posted on: 2013/3/4 6:24
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Power Lines in JC
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2012/10/12 12:58 Last Login : 2016/5/8 0:52 From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
288
 |
In terms of other people paying for it. Everytime you enjoy cheap natural gas, im paying for it. Any gas you enjoy from the marcellus shale in pa has been extracted by costing me happiness. 5 years ago i was able to hunt in pa and have an almost certain chance of coming home with a deer, but as shale drilling has expanded, wildlife in many parts of eastern pa has declined significantly. This is a prime example of the tragedy of the commons. Of course im not being compensated enough by cheap gas to make up for my inabilty to enjoy the outdoors as i once did (nor can the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of outdoor enthusiasts). I place approximately $1500/yr as the current cost of fracking/drilling to me, im probably saving about $75/yr in energy costs from fracking in pa. Im a net loser by about 1400/yr, i am personally subsidizing 19 people (as is every hunter to varying amounts). The more wildlife populations decline, the more im subsidizing borisp's power (& i dont want to give him anything for free)
Posted on: 2013/3/4 2:49
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Power Lines in JC
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Mdm, you are correct, chineese dumping has lowered the price of solar panels which is why us based firms failed. Dumping creates short-term reductions in price but if successful results in deadweight social loss as competition is lessened.
The Chinese were supplying under-priced silicon used to make panels, which was in turn subsidizing our domestic panel makers. Even with this, panel makers still failed. The manufacturers in China aren't financially sound either. Even when the Chinese send us cheap panels, solar still doesn't work out financially. The only reason big solar projects happen (J&J Inc. is a prime example) is because: 1. Somebody else is paying for it (which is us ratepayers in the form of overpriced electricity). 2. They do it for public relations reasons. Solar and wind have a more insidious issue beyond needing to be subsidized. They are destabilizing the power grid. If we continue to expand these non-dispatchable power sources, we will see grid failures that countries like Germany are seeing.
Posted on: 2013/3/4 0:01
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Power Lines in JC
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2012/10/12 12:58 Last Login : 2016/5/8 0:52 From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
288
|
Borisp, your problem is your attempt to use arithmetic and oversimplify. Its the reason you and your legion believe that an economy is analogous to a household budget. You try to frame problems in terms you understand, but you just dont understand enough to approach the problem correctly. to a carpenter every problem looks like a loose nail. You can try to ignore the importance of scale and convergence but just because you dont understand something doesnt mean its wrong. I work in finance, im not a teacher... I dont have the patience to teach someone that doesnt want to learn. Buy an economics textbook and learn the theories regarding production, competition, marginal cost and benefit, etc from an actual authority rather than from a two-bit fiction writer and the koch brothers. I know, i know, you came from a shitty politboro state and suffered so dramatically that its encouraged you to not give a shit about any of your neighbors.
Mdm, you are correct, chineese dumping has lowered the price of solar panels which is why us based firms failed. Dumping creates short-term reductions in price but if successful results in deadweight social loss as competition is lessened.
Posted on: 2013/3/3 22:44
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Power Lines in JC
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
That's just it, you express your logic quite well, and it's tiring--in much the same way that Ayn Rand's logic is tiring.
Posted on: 2013/3/3 21:55
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Power Lines in JC
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
Rockefeller competition for investing in more sustainable cities:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/t ... a-605528f6b712_story.html
Posted on: 2013/3/3 19:32
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Power Lines in JC
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Telecomreg wrote: the subsidized US solar companies failed because of chinese dumping. period. solar is approaching grid parity Without the Chinese, the cost of making solar panels would go up a lot. The Chinese dominate in the supply of refined silicon. The process of making the semi-conductors is a VERY energy intensive process. The Chinese have an edge because they don't bother treating the waste generated (silicon tetrachloride). They just dump the stuff, which poisons the ground so thoroughly, nothing will grow. Solar is by no means reaching parity. Without massive subsidies, solar would die overnight. Solar is fine for your calculator and stuff NASA does. As for a major source of power for the grid? No... not unless there is some major technological breakthrough. As of 2011, even after millions of dollars in investments, solar produced 0.11% of the total power generated in the state of NJ. Wind produced 0.02%. We had our electric rates raised dramatically (from about $0.11 to $0.12 per kWh to almost $0.18 per kWh) to pay for 'green' power and have very little to show for it. and subsidizes will be less important in afew years. the reality is that we are moving towards a less carbon intensive economy, with natural gas having a larger role because of the shale revolution. Coal plants are being retired at a record pace and may never be built again in the US. I wouldn't bet on that. The amount of new shale drilling for dry gas has fallen off a cliff. Below $4 per million Btu, gas drillers lose money. Shale depletion rates are much higher than a traditional gas well. Without new drilling, we could see a major price spike in a few years. If the price of gas goes up, we are going to end up with an emphasis back on coal. natural gas has about half the carbon as coal, so our greeh house gas emissions have been declining. Nuclear is too expensive, and few plants will be built in the next decade. After hydropower, the cheapest power right now comes from nuclear. This is the reason companies like Excelon have been buying up plants and putting them through life extension programs. New nuke plants are in works. These are new generation plants that are far safer, easier to build and maintain. Plus, there are new mini nuclear plant designs. Toshiba offered to supply their new 4S reactor to a town in Alaska for no up front cost as they would make money selling heat and power, which is currently provided by diesel generators. the US committed to reducing our ghg emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. We may very well meet that goal even without federal legislation because of the switch to natural gas, I look forward to the day when the greenhouse gas scam finally implodes. The world is blowing away resources to reduce something that in greater concentration causes plants to grow more.
Posted on: 2013/3/3 17:58
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Power Lines in JC
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Telecomreg wrote: Fine. Go, invest in solar. Build a factory in China if you think it will give you the needed advantage. If you are right about it, you will be a millionaire and I will be buying energy from you. If you do not have enough money, - well, then, there are thousands of people who share your viewpoint. Together, you can do it. Quote: Telecomreg wrote: The reality is you all talk how the green energy is so much better, but you are not very eager to actually go and invest. Oh, and natural gas is a part of carbon-based economy, not a replacement. Quote: Telecomreg wrote: True. As a result of the new fossil fuel technologies, like fracking (soon to be banned in the NY state), we are able to switch to plentiful cheap and clean natural gas from coal. Not sure how it is an argument in favor of renewable, but it is a 100% true factual statement. Quote: Telecomreg wrote: Well, Wikipedia is not a very good source for facts and figures, but it claims otherwise. Care to support your statement with numbers? As for "few plants will be built", - it is a shame. Must be some fossil lobby blocking!!!! Quote: Telecomreg wrote: Not sure what it means. I think it is a stupid thing to do - to hurt our economy without any valid scientific reason. I am certainly not committing to doing it and will oppose this at every turn. And we will win, - for the real science eventually always does.
Posted on: 2013/3/3 17:19
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Power Lines in JC
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
|
the subsidized US solar companies failed because of chinese dumping. period. solar is approaching grid parity, and subsidizes will be less important in afew years. the reality is that we are moving towards a less carbon intensive economy, with natural gas having a larger role because of the shale revolution. Coal plants are being retired at a record pace and may never be built again in the US. natural gas has about half the carbon as coal, so our greeh house gas emissions have been declining. Nuclear is too expensive, and few plants will be built in the next decade. the US committed to reducing our ghg emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. We may very well meet that goal even without federal legislation because of the switch to natural gas, lower demand becausemof the recession and a huge amount of energy eficiency programs that have been created over the last decade.
Posted on: 2013/3/3 17:01
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Power Lines in JC
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
LimpiarElSucio wrote: Ok, let's calculate a little. According to the data, we consume about 35 quads of energy from petroleum, about 25 from natural gas, about 20 from coal. About 80 total. You link says that "fossil" subsidies are 72.5 billion, so 0.9 billion per quad of energy. Now, renewable energy is at 9.1 with 29 billions in subsidies, which means about 3.19 billion per quad of energy. I.e. fossil fuel energy is not "subsidized more". Your claim that the fossil fuel industry can "dump" their prices due to those subsidies contradicts the evidence. It may be that eventually the "green" energy will outcompete fossil fuels. I can't see how, though. Nuclear quite likely, but wind and/or solar? Anyways, it may happen. However, subsidies are on the side of the "green" not the other way around. In any case, as I said a few times already, - if you want my support against the subsidies, you do have it. Let's cut them all, period. After that you may go and invest all your money in renewables. Quote: LimpiarElSucio wrote: Luckily for you, if you want me to divide one number by another, - I just did. (I graduated an elementary school, can't claim it was anything like "top" but they did cover arithmetic). Quote: LimpiarElSucio wrote: Your argument is, - in 200 years we will need some technology to replace fossil fuels. it is prudent to start working on it now! Ok. Imagine that in year 1813 someone said, - "The climate scientists calculated the increase in the smog from our factories, and extrapolated it forward. They proved that in 200 years the Sun and stars will be hidden from view by the smog entirely. We need to develop a precise navigational system that would replace astronomical observations! The prudence tells us not to wait, we must start now! I propose to erect thousands of artificial islands in all the oceans, and build the most humongous light towers upon them! Yes, it will be costly, but if we dedicate all the Planet's resources toward this goal..." Could you find an error in that argument? Do you not see that you are making an exact same mistake? Quote: LimpiarElSucio wrote: Never did I write anything about pinpoint accuracy. Nor anything about an immediate period. Since this is the second time you are trying to strawman my position, and since I have already told you that this is a strawman, I must conclude that this is not an honest mistake. Anyways, allow me to repeat myself for the Third time. Science is building testable models of reality, and testing them. If a model can not be tested, it is not a scientific model. And, when I say it is "not scientific", I do not mean it in a contemptuous sense but purely as one of factual narration. The claim of "Global Warming" was scientific, since it could have been tested, - by direct temperature measurements over sufficiently long period of time. It was a "falsifiable" claim in Popper's sense. Going from "the Earth is warming" to "the Earth is cooling" would be funny, but it would be scientific. The switch to "the Earth will rotate faster" would be outlandish, but still would be scientific. "There will be more hurricanes", - scientific. "There will be fewer hurricanes", - same thing. Note, that not one, NOT ONE of those claims requires "pinpoint accuracy" or "immediate period". Don't make me explain this for the fourth time, please. Going from "Warming" to "global change", - is not an evolution of a theory, - but a huge qualitative departure. "Change" predicts absolutely nothing. And, without prediction - there is no testing. When they moved from "Warming" to "Change" it meant two things: (a) the scientific hypothesis of Warming failed the test. That doesn't made it non-scientific, but it does prove it is wrong, (b) the people involved decided not to hang their grant money, social standing and political goals on such a feeble thing as goodness of their science, and decided to go for a 100% non-scientific "the end is nar" doomsday cult.
Posted on: 2013/3/3 15:18
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Power Lines in JC
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Frank_M wrote: My argument is fine. I aimed to show that if we can use some resource for years to come, it would be financially wasteful to discard it. My argument about fossil fuels is based on the fact that they can last for a few more centuries. So, I picked my analogies where something else can be used for a long while. What you propose, is - if we replace my analogy that accurately represents the situation with another analogy that doesn't represent the situation at all then the second analogy will not work. Duh. Quote: Frank_M wrote: I do not see how my argument can be characterized with any of these words. I mean, I understand that you do not agree with my conclusion, and I am fine with that. I am also not going to argue with the "naive" part, - yout think I am naive, I say - if you want to invest in "green energy"... well, right back at you! However the last two words are not just "wrong", I do not see how the are applicable here. I was using analogies. This is pretty standard and quite acceptable tool in a dispute. How can it be "counterproductive"? Do you mean that you'd rather not see how my logic works? Same about "egocentric", - in what possible way using an analogy is "egocentric"? Do you even know what the word means?
Posted on: 2013/3/3 13:42
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Power Lines in JC
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2012/10/12 12:58 Last Login : 2016/5/8 0:52 From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
288
|
Quote:
Before you dismiss the source because of its name look at who sits on the board... http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pi ... sarchive&sid=a2ygdsSj.KQI Quote: BorisP wrote: Some firms did fail. However, you have to ask why they failed in the market. Part of the reason is because even with subsidized loans and other programs that support the industry, the fact that the fossil fuel industry is subsidized more disrupts the market dynamic. As a libertarian you should believe that no company should be subsidized. If you think about the effect on market prices between two 'substitute-able' products with varying subsidies (assuming scale is different in the ST but equal in the LT and that the LT cost of oil extraction is increasing while the cost of alternative decreases with scale to a point nearing unit cost convergence) there is no doubt that the product with greater subsidies can reduce its price to a point to a level where the rival (less-subsidized, or subsidized with leverage) product is not profitable. This is essentially how the economic concept of "dumping" works. Luckily for you, if you want me to draw and upload the graphs that support this statement I can (I have a degree in economics from a top 10 school and am a CFA charterholder). Quote: Borisp wrote: My point wasnt about when it will end, my point was about when it will be less cost-effective and what the effect on the structure/volatility to the market/economy/society will be from subsidizing an unsustainable product. Just because something is far off shouldnt be that you shouldnt prepare for it. When you first started working were you near retirement age? I'm going to guess not but I'll wager that you started to save for it (or should have). Quote: Borisp wrote: Look at that, we agree. Quote: Borisp wrote: Thats true, but not what I was saying. You were alluding to the fact that something has to be pinpoint measurable in an immediate period, i was saying that something can be predicted within bounds. There is a reason that 99% of the worlds leading scientists believe in climate change. I'm no scientists so I cant say they are right or wrong but by your statement I guess you dont consider any of those nobel winners to be scientists? Quote: Borisp wrote: I concede. However, theories can still evolve. Changing a theory to say "change" doesn't mean you dont have a theory... it means your theory is one of volatility. Not having a concrete answer on something (that might not ever be answerable or only answered once its too late) doesnt mean you don't prepare for the possibility it is correct, there is a cost-benefit tradeoff that should be considered that guides what you do. If the cost is low then why not assume its correct? the likelihood of your house burning down is low but you still buy fire insurance...
Posted on: 2013/3/1 17:30
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Power Lines in JC
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Contemporary residential structures?which is to say, most homes on the planet?are not, nor cannot practically be, constructed to the standards of your allegedly 150 year old home. Again, your argument is naive, egocentric, and counterproductive.
Posted on: 2013/3/1 14:44
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Power Lines in JC
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
LimpiarElSucio wrote: Well, please, do provide. And, in any case it reminds me an old Russian anecdote: "Doctor, it hurts when I do this... - Well, don't do that!" If we provide subsidies, - we should stop providing them. Problem solved. Next question. Quote: LimpiarElSucio wrote: Now, this is most definitely factually wrong. Mr. Obama gave HUGE credits to most his supporters in the renewable energy business. That industry totally outstripped any fossil fuels business in the amount of government help it got. And they went belly up in droves. Quote: LimpiarElSucio wrote: None of those timelines ends in this century or even the next one. Quote: LimpiarElSucio wrote: I agree. Let's cut off all subsidies, - and let the technology that is more needed by consumers -- as opposed to politicians, -- prevail. Quote: LimpiarElSucio wrote: It is. If your model can't make any testable prediction - it is not science, period. Quote: LimpiarElSucio wrote: For a while there was no experimental proof for the Theory of Relativity, but I never said that "science is something that has experimental proof". I said, - "Science is something that makes TESTABLE PREDICTIONS". The theory of relativity DID make testable predictions. And those predictions could be tested. And that means that the Theory of Relativity was a "scientific hypothesis" Eventually the predictions WERE tested, and that upgraded the Theory of relativity from "scientific hypothesis" to "tested scientific theory". BTW, you do realize that it did not make The Relativity Theory anything like "science is settled"? You do know that the science is never settled, unlike "junk science" which frequently is?
Posted on: 2013/3/1 14:18
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Power Lines in JC
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Frank_M wrote: The house I live in was erected about 150 years ago. You were saying?...
Posted on: 2013/3/1 14:05
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Power Lines in JC
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2012/10/12 12:58 Last Login : 2016/5/8 0:52 From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
288
|
Quote:
In response to: Second: We provide extremely generous subsidies and tax breaks for fossil fuel exploration as well as consumption. If you want a specific number let me know and I'll find it and post it, I just dont have the time right now. Second/Third: If we allowed the true price of exploration, extraction, and consumption of fossil fuels I am fairly confident that we would have greater investments in renewable energy. You are correct that the sun won't be here forever, however the timeline for fossil fuels is much shorter than the suns (even given improvements in technology). Disrupting market forces through the subsidies and tax breaks is delaying the market from investing in renewable research which will lead to a much more dramatic impact once fossil fuels are depleted to the point where they cannot handle our total needs. We cannot abandon fossil fuels now or in the near future, but we need to begin the process of improving non-fossil fuels so that we can have a smoother transition over the next 50 years. Fourth: Scientists cannot specifically pinpoint exactly where an electron will be during its orbit. However, up until the late 1920s/early-30s scientists thought that they could. What I'm getting at is that our understanding of the world evolves as we gain more knowledge and science is not only about measurement (which is why we have modern/theoretical physics). Up until the 1930s/40s the "Deutsche Physiks" movement refused to recognize any theories that couldnt be proven with a physical experiment, any theories that were theoretical were labeled "Jewish Science" by the nationalistic german scientific community, this of course was abandoned following WW2 and with the greater acceptance of Einstein. By your explanation, the theory of relativity isn't science.
Posted on: 2013/2/28 14:12
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Power Lines in JC
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Very funny. I thought you might be serious, but a house that lasts for two centuries exposes the irony of your joke a little too well.
Posted on: 2013/2/28 14:04
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Power Lines in JC
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
arcy wrote: Reprinting whole articles from elsewhere does not qualify as "being thorough". It is just an attempt to substitute volume for quality of argument. Second, I am happy to inform you that public does not need to "invest" in fossil fuels and may happily leave this job to Exxon, BP and others. Of course, since you think that this investment is a waste of money, you will not buy their shares. Please, instruct the managers of your 401K that you want a new mutual fund, cleaned of all those stocks and weighted heavily with Solyndra, Evergreen Solar, SunPower, First Solar, Brightsource and others. Third, nothing in Nature is "sustainable" and/or "renewable". The Sun is neither, for once. However, it doesn't mean that we must immediately drop all other problems and dedicate our economy toward building a space ship in order to leave this Solar system. Do you know why? The answer is simple. The Sun is not going to turn red giant tomorrow. We can safely go about our business, and postpone the problem of the dying Sun till the distant future when it becomes more pressing. At the same time hoping that in the aforementioned future we will have much better technologies to deal with it in a more safe and inexpensive way than right now. Same goes for fossil fuels. Yes, they may not be renewable and sustainable, - but they are not coming to an end nowhere near the next decade. They will last centuries - plural. There is no more rational justification for abandoning them right now than for abandoning the Planet. However, if you think otherwise, as I said, - develop some alternative as a private venture. If you are right, you will be rich and famous like Brin and Page. Or like Bill Gates, or Jeff Bezos, or Steve Jobs. And I will thank you and pay you for your product. Fourth, as far as "Global Climate Change" goes... Now, when you switched from "Global Ice Age" meme of the 70-s to "Global Warming", - that may have been explained as "scientists made a mistake". However, when you go from "Warming" to simply "Change", it means this is not science anymore. The whole point of Science is building a model that allows us to predict reality. This is why Science requires experiments, testing, - because we want to check that the predictions of the models match the reality. If the testing goes fine, we feel more confident relying on the model. If not, it means the model is wrong and can't be relied upon. Period. Now, "Global Change" means that you do not even have the model in the first place! The word "change" means - you have no idea what is going to happen! None! This is no longer Science. The testing is no longer possible, because whatever happens, it is all good. Big snowstorm? It proves Global Change! So does no snow. Rain? Proves. Drought? Proves. Lots of hurricanes in 2005? Oh, yes, it proves! Big lull in hurricanes since? Proves too! Too hot in Kansas? Proves. Too cold in Moscow? Proves! Sun went up this morning? Sure, let's add that to the list.
Posted on: 2013/2/28 13:03
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Power Lines in JC
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
Joined:
2013/2/24 20:45 Last Login : 2014/8/23 19:32 From hamilton park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
145
|
Quote:
You're right. That was a sentimental post. I should have been more thorough. I know I don't want to invest another public cent into fossil fuels that is damaging the earth and is not sustainable or renewable. Repairing and rebuilding current sources is hubris. "While the temptation might be to repair damaged infrastructure quickly, Blakely warned that the state should build smarter and better. ?We can?t look to past weather conditions; we can?t look to past building codes anymore,?? he said. Build an infrastructure for the next century, urged Blakely, a viewpoint repeatedly echoed at the conference, which was hosted by New Jersey Future, a smart growth organization, along with Kislak Real Estate Institute and the Urban Coast Institute. ?With climate change, we can no longer expect the future to look like the past,?? said Anthony Broccoli, professor of atmospheric science in the Department of Environmental Sciences at Rutgers University. ?We do know that climate change alters the probability of extreme events.?? " http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/12 ... jersey-shore-experts-say/ ""The next 50 to 100 years are going to be very different than what we've seen in the past 50 years," said S. Jeffress Williams, a scientist emeritus at the U.S. Geological Survey's Woods Hole Science Center in Massachusetts." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11 ... rsey-shore_n_2056578.html UPS is currently investing in Solar in NJ: "Federal and state government incentives encouraged our investments in solar energy sources," said Steve Leffin, director of global sustainability at UPS. "We develop, engineer, own and operate our solar capacity, which is a departure from contracted power-purchase agreements in which a company pays a solar power provider for a set price of electricity for 20 years. Under this arrangement, we not only benefit at UPS, but can also help community power grids by providing a hedge against possible energy price hikes during peak usage times." New Jersey has established incentives for the generation of renewable power that can serve as a catalyst for increasing overall business commitment to renewable energy. The state has one of the nation's most progressive solar energy policies and is currently second in the U.S. for total installed capacity of solar energy technology." http://www.pressroom.ups.com/Press+Re ... +at+New+Jersey+Facilities Dodge Foundation: New Jersey municipalities are stepping up to help meet the state goals for renewable energy (solar, wind) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and our dependence on foreign oil. However, town staff are finding that a lack of precedence and the tough choices regarding trade-offs are slowing the process. New Jersey continues to be a leader in renewable energy and solar in particular, with over 18,000 solar development projects providing cleaner and renewable electricity. This is due in part to both federal and state financial incentives and in particular, New Jersey?s renewable portfolio standard which creates a market for owners of solar assets to sell Solar Renewable Energy Credits (SRECs). Municipalities Need Guidance The large influx of solar projects has made an issue of the lack of clear guidance or accepted standards available to municipalities for properly siting and permitting these projects. As with any building improvement or development, solar projects must go through local land use and permitting procedures. New Jersey municipalities are struggling to deal with issues ranging from the nitty-gritty of setting safety and aesthetics standards for small rooftop installations (would you like shrubbery with that solar panel?) to dealing with regional impacts from large commercial installations. Questions abound: Can I cut down the trees around my house so I can qualify for solar? Will the large-scale solar panel installation you are planning have an adverse effect on the surrounding wildlife and the overall image of the town? The need for renewable energy is great, but an honest assessment recognizes that when done wrong these installations can have significant land use, aesthetic, economic and environmental impacts. - See more at: http://blog.grdodge.org/2012/12/19/sh ... sey/#sthash.AuJws6R3.dpuf There is a sustainable nj meetup: "WHY: In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, New Jersey needs to rebuild vital infrastructure. As thousands of people continue to rebuild their homes, businesses and lives after Sandy, the benefits of energy efficient solutions should not be overlooked. Connecting our communities to the right resources, tools and incentive programs is crucial." http://www.sustainablejersey.com/news ... bf9100abf7a7f8b39e1ab3a80 Forbes: "Rebuilding smarter means finding ways to keep people, and vital infrastructure, out of harm?s way. It means strengthening power systems with smarter designs to prevent the multi-day outages that left hundreds of thousands in the cold and dark for days following the storm. It means revitalizing the natural systems, such as creating wetlands, which once helped protect our shores from storm surges and flooding. But it won?t happen quickly. By some estimates, it may take ten years, and tens of billions of dollars, before hard-hit areas like the Jersey Shore start to resemble their pre-Sandy outlines. Additional resiliency measures for thwarting more powerful storms will cost exponentially more. (One example of this: Consolidated Edison says it would cost $40 billion to put its electric lines underground.) One thing is certain: no one jurisdiction can do it alone. Extreme events like superstorms and super-droughts cross all boundaries, political and geographic. And solutions, both the financial costs and necessary policies, must cross those boundaries as well..... Along the Pacific coast, leaders of California, Oregon, Washington and British Columbia have been working together since 2008 on the Pacific Coast Collaborative (PCC), promoting cross-border efforts to grow the economy, create jobs, advance clean, renewable energy, and reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Most recently, these jurisdictions announced the creation of the West Coast Infrastructure Exchange, designed to boost efforts to invest in critical infrastructure needs, including upgraded roads, bridges and water systems. The PCC provides the structure necessary to strengthen long-term collaboration and financing support between governments, businesses and investors. Similar public-private partnerships are needed on the East Coast and elsewhere for post-Sandy rebuilding, and some of them are already in the works. In December, the New York City Teachers Retirement System pledged $1 billion for new investments in infrastructure projects in New York City and throughout the tri-state area, including improvements to transportation, power, water, communications and housing. In Louisiana, power utility Entergy is restoring wetlands that will help soften the blow from future storms. In Maryland, which has seen a dozen Chesapeake Bay islands disappear due to sea level rise, the state?s governor signed an executive order last month mandating that new bridges, roads and sewer systems be designed with higher sea levels in mind. He?s also asked regulators to raise electricity rates by a dollar or two a month to allow utilities to do more resiliency work. Factoring climate change into such building and rebuilding efforts is only common sense. The sweeping economic losses from subways, electricity, hospitals and Wall Street being shuttered by Sandy will be felt for years to come. Yet the lesson hits with the force of a flood: Cost-effective resiliency investments can help avoid future economic calamities. We must ensure that policymakers, businesses and investors act on that lesson before the next catastrophe strikes." http://www.forbes.com/sites/mindylubb ... lding-in-a-warming-world/ NYT OPINION: OP-ED CONTRIBUTORS Solar Panels for Every Home By DAVID CRANE and ROBERT F. KENNEDY Jr. Published: December 12, 2012 "....Residents of New Jersey and New York have lived through three major storms in the past 16 months, suffering through sustained blackouts, closed roads and schools, long gas lines and disrupted lives, all caused by the destruction of our electric system. When our power industry is unable to perform its most basic mission of supplying safe, affordable and reliable power, we need to ask whether it is really sensible to run the 21st century by using an antiquated and vulnerable system of copper wires and wooden poles. Some of our neighbors have taken matters into their own hands, purchasing portable gas-powered generators in order to give themselves varying degrees of ?grid independence.? But these dirty, noisy and expensive devices have no value outside of a power failure. And they?re not much help during a failure if gasoline is impossible to procure. Having spent our careers in and around the power industry, we believe there is a better way to secure grid independence for our homes and businesses. (Disclosure: Mr. Crane?s company, based in Princeton, N.J., generates power from coal, natural gas, and nuclear, wind and solar energy.) Solar photovoltaic technology can significantly reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and our dependence on the grid. Electricity-producing photovoltaic panels installed on houses, on the roofs of warehouses and big box stores and over parking lots can be wired so that they deliver power when the grid fails. Solar panels have dropped in price by 80 percent in the past five years and can provide electricity at a cost that is at or below the current retail cost of grid power in 20 states, including many of the Northeast states. So why isn?t there more of a push for this clean, affordable, safe and inexhaustible source of electricity? First, the investor-owned utilities that depend on the existing system for their profits have little economic interest in promoting a technology that empowers customers to generate their own power. Second, state regulatory agencies and local governments impose burdensome permitting and siting requirements that unnecessarily raise installation costs. Today, navigating the regulatory red tape constitutes 25 percent to 30 percent of the total cost of solar installation in the United States, according to data from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and, as such, represents a higher percentage of the overall cost than the solar equipment itself. In Germany, where sensible federal rules have fast-tracked and streamlined the permit process, the costs are considerably lower. It can take as little as eight days to license and install a solar system on a house in Germany. In the United States, depending on your state, the average ranges from 120 to 180 days. More than one million Germans have installed solar panels on their roofs. Australia also has a streamlined permitting process and has solar panels on 10 percent of its homes. Solar photovoltaic power would give America the potential to challenge the utility monopolies, democratize energy generation and transform millions of homes and small businesses into energy generators. Rational, market-based rules could turn every American into an energy entrepreneur. That transition to renewable power could create millions of domestic jobs and power in this country with American resourcefulness, initiative and entrepreneurial energy while taking a substantial bite out of the nation?s emissions of greenhouse gases and other dangerous pollutants. As we restore crucial infrastructure after the storm, let?s build an electricity delivery system that is more resilient, clean, democratic and reliable than the one that Sandy washed away. We can begin by eliminating the regulatory hurdles impeding solar generation and use incentives like the renewable energy tax credit ? which Congress seems poised to eliminate ? to balance the subsidies enjoyed by fossil fuel producers. And as we rebuild the tens of thousands of houses and commercial buildings damaged and destroyed by the storm, let?s incorporate solar power arrays and other clean energy technologies in their designs, and let?s allow them to be wired so they still are generating even when the centralized grid system is down. We have the technology. The economics makes sense. All we need is the political will." http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/13/opi ... -for-every-home.html?_r=0
Posted on: 2013/2/28 2:26
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Power Lines in JC
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I do not see how refusing to use available resources and overpaying for an alternative qualifies as "thinking of future generations". However, if you do, there is no need to waste time persuading me. Many people share your convictions. You all can pull together your resources, and invest your own money. And develop those new energy sources. If you are right, you will squeeze current sources out of the market, I will purchase energy from you, and you will be a millionaire. Isn't it nice, - to be right AND a millionaire? And, if you do not believe in this idea sufficiently enough to invest in it personally, - why would I even listen to the presentation?
Posted on: 2013/2/28 1:59
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Power Lines in JC
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Power distribution systems in European cities had the unfortunate opportunity to be built from scratch in more modern times. ?Don?t mention the war.? -John Cleese as Basil Fawlty
Posted on: 2013/2/27 18:45
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Power Lines in JC
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2007/1/11 21:47 Last Login : 2022/7/25 21:48 From Van Vorst Park area
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
175
|
I think the bigger problem is that all the substations that deliver the power to the grid are located in low-elevation sites on the edges of the city. For instance the big substation at Grand and Pacific (southeast corner, click here to see an aerial view) was in the surge zone. PSE&G announced plans last week to elevate the equipment in those substations and switching centers.
Posted on: 2013/2/27 18:05
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Power Lines in JC
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
Joined:
2013/2/24 20:45 Last Login : 2014/8/23 19:32 From hamilton park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
145
|
You're right though that some Solar Power does require fossil fuel power:
"Over in Fair Lawn, Mayor Lisa Swain said that her city had not interfered with the program and that she was trying to make the community sustainable in other ways, like using motion sensor lighting in city buildings. ?I?m going to do what I can,? she said. Sean Smith, a 43-year-old airline sales supervisor in Fair Lawn, said he was fine with the seven panels on his street, especially ?if it?s helping the greenhouse effect.? ?We have the kids to think about,? he said. But his neighbor Tony Christofi, a 47-year-old contractor, wondered aloud whether Fair Lawn, by not fighting, was getting more than its fair share. ?I?m fine with green energy,? he said, ?but are the savings going to be passed on to consumers?? PSE&G officials said solar energy was still more expensive to produce than more traditional power sources and acknowledged that bills were going up 29 cents a month. One panel will produce enough kilowatt hours in one year to light four 60-watt bulbs around the clock for around six weeks, the company said. When complete, the panels on the poles are expected to provide half of the 80 megawatts of electricity generated by the utility's overall $515 million solar investment ? enough to power 6,500 homes." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/sci ... solar.html?pagewanted=all I think you're right that it will be an adjustment to full renewable energy but the same can be said about electricity when it started. But even in contemporary times, we face brown outs, black outs and power outages. When I lived in California, we had brown outs frequently. Most 3rd world countries have brown outs. I lived in NYC during the 2003 Black Out. We need to shift our power system yesterday. But, I think they can power entire buildings like Jersey City Shop rite Shoprite had power after the storm because they have solar power panels In 2010: " The third Project of the Year is presented to G & S Investors, the developers of Metro Plaza for the installation of solar panels on the Shoprite building at the Plaza. All of these projects represent this "coming-of-age" of sustainable building in Jersey City. "The Green Awards is our way of thanking and recognizing the City's green pioneers. They are the trail blazers who will lead our environmentally responsible development now taking hold in our City and the State," stated Jerramiah Healy, Mayor of Jersey City." http://www.thejcra.org/index.php?p=news&nid=137 "Clear Skies Solar, Inc. (?CSS?) (OTC Bulletin Board: CSKH), a full-service renewable energy provider to commercial, industrial and agricultural clients, announces its second fully financed project for 2010, a 324 kW solar power project to be installed on the ShopRite building located in the Metro Plaza in New Jersey. The new project is being financed by G&S Investors of New York City, bringing the total currently announced and financed CSS backlog to $2.1 million or more than half a megawatt in just the first six weeks of the New Year 2010." http://www.levelstock.com/levelstock- ... rsey-city-project-cms-198 Here's a solar power vendor http://www.dasolar.com/solar-panel-in ... on/new-jersey/jersey-city Quote:
Posted on: 2013/2/27 17:14
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Power Lines in JC
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
Quote:
Then I wonder how they did it in historic neighborhoods in Manhattan and Brooklyn, many years ago with less technology? Cost of burying is low. Expensive is restoring what must be destroyed to bury power lines - landscaping, sidewalks, curbs, accidentally damaged buried pipes, etc. BBC would often make this comment about American towns without power after moderate storms such as Sandy. Americans have overhead power lines. Briitish do not understand. Their utility wires are buried. Equivalent storms do not cause so much chaos in British cities. If we wanted to solve this problem, then all construction also requires buried pipes installed so that future services are installed in those pipes. Unfortunately, naysayers make such forward thinking impossible. 'Renewable' energy does not solve the problem. Does not matter how power is generated. Those lines are still required. Renewable power (ie solar clells) shuts off when utility wires are down. Absolutely necessary for human safety and other reasons.
Posted on: 2013/2/27 16:36
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Power Lines in JC
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
Joined:
2013/2/24 20:45 Last Login : 2014/8/23 19:32 From hamilton park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
145
|
1. we must think of future generations.
2. http://www.njcleanenergy.com/reip 3. explore feasibility http://www.njcleanenergy.com/renewabl ... power-feasibility-studies 4. http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/ ... ne-Sandy-tests-solar-wind. 5. "Hence, the Northeast?s wind and solar farms evoked little public anxiety this week when Hurricane Sandy hit ? unlike the nuclear and fossil fuel infrastructure. Safety officials kept a careful eye on the nuclear power plants and three were shut down in New Jersey and New York. And the smell of natural gas in any flooded areas drew quick attention from those who understood the danger." http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/r ... -renewable-energy-systems 6. "The study cited offshore wind and solar facilities as one potential example. They could be sited in areas that are initially more expensive, but less subject to large reductions in power plant output resulting from climate change, the report said." http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/13 ... -according-to-new-report/ 7. We won't have a "choice." The next storm may wipe out power for weeks, months. We can't afford to keep rebuilding. Einstein says, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting DIFFERENT results." We are at a crossroads. In the next power outage, I do not want to have this discussion again. I want to be on our way to sustainable renewable power. I don't want to be seeing gas lines. I want to see the US moving away from dependance on fossil fuels. We ought to be growing our own local foods, moving towards urban gardening and making our communities more sustainable. Quote:
Posted on: 2013/2/27 4:02
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Power Lines in JC
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
arcy wrote: Why bother with expensive energy that requires us to cover the landscape with windmills (and then be able to use it only when the wind blows!) while we have huge reserves of the cheap energy, and we keep discovering more and more of the reserves? I mean, - like, yes, eventually, your house will need to be torn down and rebuilt, but if you can squeeze 100-200 years of service from it, why rebuild it now? Or, your car will have to be eventually replaced, but if you can drive it for another 100 thousand miles, why waste it?
Posted on: 2013/2/27 3:16
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Power Lines in JC
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Mercer power lines are not buried. The lines run along the sides of the buildings.
Posted on: 2013/2/27 0:41
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Power Lines in JC
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
Joined:
2013/2/24 20:45 Last Login : 2014/8/23 19:32 From hamilton park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
145
|
Port Liberte has underground power lines. Port Liberte was without power for at least a couple of weeks after Hurricane Sandy.
We need sustainable renewable energy (i.e. solar, wind power).
Posted on: 2013/2/26 23:30
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Power Lines in JC
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I don't see why, many of them already have their meter service in the basement. But it'll never happen, the cost is WAY too high.
Posted on: 2013/2/26 23:04
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Power Lines in JC
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2008/1/3 19:12 Last Login : 2020/9/30 18:46 From Van Vorst Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
2391
|
Quote:
Then I wonder how they did it in historic neighborhoods in Manhattan and Brooklyn, many years ago with less technology?
Posted on: 2013/2/26 22:18
|
|||
|
||||