Cap and Trade

#76
#76
I'd bet $1000 is the minimum increase of taxpayer cost at the gas pump alone.

Not to mention the increased cost of everything else. Or the increased cost to companies. How many jobs are going to be cut by companies trying to save money?
 
#77
#77
615 Vol said:
I agree. If you do the math, stamps are .44 right now x 365 days = $160.60 a year. I hate it when people try to break a cost down like that. I had a car dealer pull that crap on me one time by saying car B would only be about the cost of a soft drink a day more than car A. He then proceeded to hit me with the "you can afford a coke a day, can't you" routine. Needless to say, I went somewhere else.
Click to expand...
I really wish some Repub would counter the postage stamp cost analogy with one that really gives the average Joe Six Pack an understanding of how much this costs.

"$.44 per day comes out to $13.20 every 30 days/month... that is the cost of one 12 pack of beer. Can you afford to go with one less 6 pack every two week pay period?" :unsure:
 
#79
#79
jwells said:
East Tennessee isn't a bad place for them, just not a ton of real estate to plant them on.
Click to expand...
If you are refering to windmills, you couldn't be more wrong.

Just take a drive up Pellissippi Parkway going towards Oak Ridge and look off into the horizon at the 18 windmills they have high atop Buffalo Mountain. At any given time, you will hardly ever see more than 2/3 of them turning at the sametime... and that would be on a good day.
 
#80
#80
Estimating the cost of something like this is ridiculously complicated. For example, how does one really separate the fact that gas will probably be $4.00 or $4.50 a gallon next summer (assuming economic recovery by summer 2010) with just standard price increases from the cost increases passed down to cover the cap?

If the impacts of this bill move over $500 per family, then legislation will move to make the program watered down even more, IMO. I just don't think that the popular support is there to be willing to "pay" anything over that. The credits are already being given away for free to almost everyone (which I think will keep the numbers payed by families down out of some of the higher predictions being thrown around). But, I think us trying to put numbers on the cost of this is similar to people in the recruiting forum putting percentages on the chances Scroggins becomes a Vol. I really have no idea what it will be....
 
#81
#81
TheDeeble said:
I'd bet $1000 is the minimum increase of taxpayer cost at the gas pump alone.

Not to mention the increased cost of everything else. Or the increased cost to companies. How many jobs are going to be cut by companies trying to save money?
Click to expand...

I bet the number of jobs lost will easily be in the 7 figures.
 
#82
#82
Rasputin_Vol said:
If you are refering to windmills, yo couldn't be more wrong.

Just take a drive up Pellissippi Parkway going towards Oak Ridge and look off into the horizon at the 18 windmills they have high atop Buffalo Mountain. At any given time, you will hardly ever see more than 2/3 of them turning at the sametime... and that would be on a good day.
Click to expand...

When they only had about 3 or 4 up there they were always going...maybe they just overshot the wind capacity....
 
#83
#83
TennTradition said:
When they only had about 3 or 4 up there they were always going...maybe they just overshot the wind capacity....
Click to expand...
Just because they were "turning", it doesn't mean they were "generating". In fact, from what I have been told, they were actually being used in some instances as "motors" for voltage regulation. In essence, the system was actually turning them in those instances... not the wind.

Similar to this...
Synchronous condenser - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
#84
#84
is wind even worth it outside of the pr that you get for using them? I guess if you have large wind farms where you can bundle all of the installation/maintenance/etc. it might be worth it?

Compared to nuclear, hydro, and steam what is the relative output for money input?
 
#85
#85
Daddy Gee said:
Compared to nuclear, hydro, and steam what is the relative output for money input?
Click to expand...

About $2~3 million per MW for windmills. If you want to be conservative, I suppose a $4 billion nuke plant with two 1500 MW units could get you there at just under $1.5 million per MW.

But even with that, you still have to look at how much land has to be used. You would need at least 1200 wind turbines to equal the output of one nuke reactor. Now visualize how much real estate that would be necessary for that compared to how much land they are wasting using with the windmills outside of Oak Ridge. I would conservatively estimate that each 1 MW unit would require about 5 acres, maybe more.
 
#86
#86
TennTradition, global warming is a myth, but climate change is real. Climate change happens over the course of time and it's been very well documented over time. This is going to cost the average American, myself, too much money and will make it to where I may not be able to pay for my bills. I hope the liberal elitists are happy with what they have done. Hell, I may not even be able to go watch football games at Neyland without it breaking my wallet.
 
#87
#87
g8terh8ter_eric said:
TennTradition, global warming is a myth...
Click to expand...

You are not able to make that statement as fact. You do not know it with the certainty required to do so. You believe that, I'm sure. You could even be right - I can't say with 100% confidence that you're not. I believe that the science is convincing enough to believe that man is and will continue to contribute some amount of warming. I'm not convinced on how much or what those effects would even be. You know that's my belief, so no need to go into that again.

I've always been of the opinion that Americans will never really embrace the changes/expense required to make a real impact on our greenhouse gas emissions. I think that we would rather just pay for the adaptions required for whatever climate change occurs, if any, and let other countries deal with it in their own way. If climate change does happen, then that is incredibly unfair to many countries that are not developed yet would pay for the consequences...but I'm not sure we would care until that happened...and then we might reach out to help, I don't know.

I also believe that this bill, in its current form, will not bring down the hell that many people in here think that it will. I also believe that the pushback if that starts happen will be sufficient to reverse our course in relatively short order if the effect is that strong.

One interesting question to me is if we begin to find out that man is contributing to climate change in a more convincing way to people...will we be willing to deal with it then...or will we just pay for the adaptations we require (desalinization plants, sea walls, etc.)?
 
#88
#88
yep... it's not even close on output.... I'm sure Coalfield/Joyner/Petros won't mind a few more........


Rasputin_Vol said:
About $2~3 million per MW for windmills. If you want to be conservative, I suppose a $4 billion nuke plant with two 1500 MW units could get you there at just under $1.5 million per MW.

But even with that, you still have to look at how much land has to be used. You would need at least 1200 wind turbines to equal the output of one nuke reactor. Now visualize how much real estate that would be necessary for that compared to how much land they are wasting using with the windmills outside of Oak Ridge. I would conservatively estimate that each 1 MW unit would require about 5 acres, maybe more.
Click to expand...
 
#89
#89
TennTradition said:
You are not able to make that statement as fact. You do not know it with the certainty required to do so. You believe that, I'm sure. You could even be right - I can't say with 100% confidence that you're not. I believe that the science is convincing enough to believe that man is and will continue to contribute some amount of warming. I'm not convinced on how much or what those effects would even be. You know that's my belief, so no need to go into that again.

I've always been of the opinion that Americans will never really embrace the changes/expense required to make a real impact on our greenhouse gas emissions. I think that we would rather just pay for the adaptions required for whatever climate change occurs, if any, and let other countries deal with it in their own way. If climate change does happen, then that is incredibly unfair to many countries that are not developed yet would pay for the consequences...but I'm not sure we would care until that happened...and then we might reach out to help, I don't know.

I also believe that this bill, in its current form, will not bring down the hell that many people in here think that it will. I also believe that the pushback if that starts happen will be sufficient to reverse our course in relatively short order if the effect is that strong.

One interesting question to me is if we begin to find out that man is contributing to climate change in a more convincing way to people...will we be willing to deal with it then...or will we just pay for the adaptations we require (desalinization plants, sea walls, etc.)?
Click to expand...

We have been cooling over the course of the past 10 years, not sure how that could be considered global warming. Al Gore stands to make a MINT over this whole thing. It's all about money anymore, the science doesn't matter because they present anything they want to the braindead people of this country and they will believe it.
 
#90
#90
Rasputin_Vol said:
About $2~3 million per MW for windmills. If you want to be conservative, I suppose a $4 billion nuke plant with two 1500 MW units could get you there at just under $1.5 million per MW.

But even with that, you still have to look at how much land has to be used. You would need at least 1200 wind turbines to equal the output of one nuke reactor. Now visualize how much real estate that would be necessary for that compared to how much land they are wasting using with the windmills outside of Oak Ridge. I would conservatively estimate that each 1 MW unit would require about 5 acres, maybe more.
Click to expand...

If the nuclear waste storage issue is sorted out then I think this comparison is about right. Wind just isn't going to be the answer for the US...there may be a few niche markets, but that's about it. I will also say, pretty much any alternative energy system looks bad when compared against nuclear.
 
#92
#92
I fail to see the impact less than 1 degree has on the environment, it's also corrected itself over the course of the past 10 years. The ice is back in place that it was going away, and things are getting back to normal. Money is the only thing driving the Global Warming Myth, and that's fact.
 
#93
#93
g8terh8ter_eric said:
We have been cooling over the course of the past 10 years, not sure how that could be considered global warming. Al Gore stands to make a MINT over this whole thing. It's all about money anymore, the science doesn't matter because they present anything they want to the braindead people of this country and they will believe it.
Click to expand...

The cooling argument just doesn't make sense, Eric. Not yet....if we continue for the next 5 or 10 years...maybe then...look at this plot...

Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png


For example....someone sitting in 1985 would be thinking that the earth was cooling off...from 1980 to 1990 we somewhat cooled. But, then we hit a big warming trend, taking us higher than we were in 1990. Then we cooled again for several years, until a bigger warming trend took us to even higher temperatures by 1998 (which was a crazy hot year...quite abnormal, even with the context of global warming). Then we cooled for a number of years, then hit another warming trend...now we've been cooling for a few years. The point is that to say that we've been cooling for the past 10 years is:

1) Wrong....we've been cooling and warming. In 2008, you would have had to say that we've been warming for the last 10 years (using 2007 numbers as the last full year measure). This year, you would have to say that we've cooled over the last 10 years (using 2008 numbers as the last full year measure). Next year, you will more than likely have to say that we've warmed over the last 10 years (using 2009 numbers as the last full year measure). Taking the endpoints is simply dishonest when talking about temperature changes.

The fact is that the temperature in 2008 was cooler than it was ten years before, but that's been true several times in the last 30 years, yet we've been fairly consistently warming at about .2 degrees C / decade (which is pretty close to the rate which the scientific literature compiled by the IPCC estimates we will warm).

2) An overstated and misguided "example" of why global warming theory must be wrong.

3) Is not indicative of a reversal in trend...actually its quite consistent with what we've been seeing for some time.

If we don't see a big turnaround and warming period within the next 5 or 8 years...then maybe it is indicative of something bigger...but until then, the point just doesn't have any legs to stand on.

These points do not "prove" climate change theory, of course, it can't be proven...that's how theories work....
 
Last edited:
#94
#94
actually, global warming/climate change isn't a myth, it is reality. It's just that the Al Gore's of the world want to create an anti-industrial hysteria centered around the myth of anthropogenic global warming, where mankind's activities are the sole cause.

CO2 is not a pollutant, it's a necessary part of our atmosphere. It's been proven that plants thrive in a CO2 rich environment, and if plants thrive, humans benefit as well. I don't have the scientific background that TT does, but I've also not had the "science" of AGW crammed down my throat as "settled science" either.

there's also the problem of AGW not being provable in a lab environment.
 
#95
#95
I guess that they just can't figure out that the sun and weather patterns control temperature more than CO2, which isn't a pollutant and encourages plant growth. BTW, if we all ate more meat, then we could control global warming more because the animals produce more than man combined.
 
#96
#96
g8terh8ter_eric said:
Here's something interesting to read TT....

Computer Predictions Overturned: Global Climate Explained
Click to expand...

Does that article think that it overturns the predictions of the models? It brought up a lot of examples, but I never saw any methodology to suggest that it was trying to overturn anything. Did it point to an actual study that did believe it overturned the predictions of the models?

There is no doubt that the models are incomplete...and wrong. The important questions are how wrong...and are they wrong enough to miss the trend. I worry most about proper inclusion of feedbacks in the models - particularly water vapor. If they're getting water vapor wrong, then they could have a big problem...because that is obviously the biggest greenhouse gas.
 
#97
#97
g8terh8ter_eric said:
I guess that they just can't figure out that the sun and weather patterns control temperature more than CO2, which isn't a pollutant and encourages plant growth. BTW, if we all ate more meat, then we could control global warming more because the animals produce more than man combined.
Click to expand...
You talk about liberal elitists and the hell they're bringing down, but these kind of statements are just as (or almost as) sanctimonious...I see that you've got it figured out...if only "they" could see the truth.

The sun is obviously the largest factor in the earth's temperature...trust me, "they've" figured that out. Just because it is the largest factor doesn't mean that it is the largest contributor to variations in temperature - an important distinction, for sure. Ocean currents are a huge driver of climate, and are hard to figure out - this causes uncertainty...something that the scientists are aware of, and use the best methods they can to treat...but it causes uncertainty in important predictions (obviously a problem). CO2 doesn't have to be one of the biggest drivers of temperature in order to still have an effect when changing rapidly. You can't look at it alone, of course...you have to look at solar output (when worrying about millions of years of temperature record), water vapor concentrations, etc. But over 100 years...these other factors don't change that much, but CO2 does....figuring out that effect (is it zero, is it a little, is it a lot...?) is the point of the research that is ongoing.

You're right that CO2 can induce more plant growth, which could increase the sink of CO2 into the earth to some degree. But, things aren't as easy to understand as you imply they are. Is CO2 the only nutrient trees need? Of course not. Plants that are not limited in these other nutrients will grow faster with more CO2, until one of these nutrients (nitrates, phosphates, etc.) become limiting. Many plants on earth are already limited in one of these areas...so additional CO2 won't help them. Figuring out how much growth to expect is an active research area and is included in CO2 forecasts.

As for eating more meat...too bad we would have to raise even more animals if we ate more meat, exacerbating emissions......are you serious with some of this stuff? I know that you said that sarcastically...but the premise is even wrong.
 
#98
#98
TennTradition said:
You talk about liberal elitists and the hell they're bringing down, but these kind of statements are just as (or almost as) sanctimonious...I see that you've got it figured out...if only "they" could see the truth.

The sun is obviously the largest factor in the earth's temperature...trust me, "they've" figured that out. Just because it is the largest factor doesn't mean that it is the largest contributor to variations in temperature - an important distinction, for sure. Ocean currents are a huge driver of climate, and are hard to figure out - this causes uncertainty...something that the scientists are aware of, and use the best methods they can to treat...but it causes uncertainty in important predictions (obviously a problem). CO2 doesn't have to be one of the biggest drivers of temperature in order to still have an effect when changing rapidly. You can't look at it alone, of course...you have to look at solar output (when worrying about millions of years of temperature record), water vapor concentrations, etc. But over 100 years...these other factors don't change that much, but CO2 does....figuring out that effect (is it zero, is it a little, is it a lot...?) is the point of the research that is ongoing.

You're right that CO2 can induce more plant growth, which could increase the sink of CO2 into the earth to some degree. But, things aren't as easy to understand as you imply they are. Is CO2 the only nutrient trees need? Of course not. Plants that are not limited in these other nutrients will grow faster with more CO2, until one of these nutrients (nitrates, phosphates, etc.) become limiting. Many plants on earth are already limited in one of these areas...so additional CO2 won't help them. Figuring out how much growth to expect is an active research area and is included in CO2 forecasts.

As for eating more meat...too bad we would have to raise even more animals if we ate more meat, exacerbating emissions......are you serious with some of this stuff? I know that you said that sarcastically...but the premise is even wrong.
Click to expand...

I'm just tired of corrupt politicians thinking they have it all figured out and they know what's best for us. It's sickening. There also has never been TRUE agreement on global warming/CO2 emissions and the REAL effect they are/will have. I believe that this myth, I believe it's myth, is the latest get rich quick scheme for the politicians.
 
#99
#99
I think that the sooner EVERYONE stops pretending that climate change is a simple issue - that man is clearly responsible or that global warming is obviously a myth - the better off we will all be. It is not a simple issue. It will not become one. We will be forced to make decisions in the face of scientific uncertainty. This is a complex issue, and no one's better welfare is served by pretending that the truth of the matter is simple. It is not obvious. Statements of pure fact are very difficult to make - on EITHER side of the argument. What I think we have to do is come to understand the uncertainty (both in temperature predictions and the EFFECTS of those temperatures), make a more honest and forthright attempt to balance this with the costs in an open manner, and actually have an informed decision making process.

This bull about, "Make no mistake, this is a jobs bill," is ridiculous. We could make green jobs without a climate bill, we could simply use subsidies (particularly since the government isn't selling over 80% of the credits anymore, they are giving them away). I haven't been happy with the debate in Congress over this bill, I haven't been happy with the administrations treatment of climate and the sweeping the dust under the rug that has taken place, and I haven't been happy with people trying to pretend that this isn't a complex issue and that someone is clearly brainwashed, a sheep, and in some cases intentionally causing harm if he/she happens to fall on the other side of thinking.
 
#100
#100
Rasputin_Vol said:
If you are refering to windmills, you couldn't be more wrong.

Just take a drive up Pellissippi Parkway going towards Oak Ridge and look off into the horizon at the 18 windmills they have high atop Buffalo Mountain. At any given time, you will hardly ever see more than 2/3 of them turning at the sametime... and that would be on a good day.
Click to expand...

USA%20Wind%20Map.gif


East Tennessee has the wind capability to integrate more wind power. The turbines near Oak Ridge aren't in the best spot, but South of Knoxville there is good wind.

I'd rather have another Nuclear plant, but given how hard that is to push through, wind isn't a terrible investment.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top