They most certainly do. There are land-grant colleges doing research in new methodologies for coal slurries and new methods of burning coal and extracting oil. As I have said before the main corporate methodology is to externalize costs and government (which includes our colleges) is a willing swallower of those costs.
Bruce Leier > -----Original Message----- > From: Harry Pollard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, January 01, 1999 4:42 PM > To: Bruce Leier; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: The Solar Economy > > Bruce, > > I would have thought that oil didn't get any kind of government subsidy. > Also coal surely didn't. > > But, I repeat that it would be better if there no government subsidies for > any energy source. > > Two problems arise from subsidies. One is that it throws off the market > mechanism, so you don't know which is the best fuel. Second, it directs > research in a particular direction, which may not be the best. This means > major money goes chasing after perhaps a false path. > > At the same time, those who might be interested in pursuing innovative > alternatives are dissuaded by the enormous advantage enjoyed by those > subsidized. > > In other words, perhaps solar, wind, and nuclear might now be supplying us > with electricity if government were not involved. > > Harry > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------- > > Bruce wrote: > > >Harry, > > > >I do not know of any energy technology that did not get its start and/or > >a big boost through subsidies of some kind. Oil certainly did. And > >nuclear really did, too. Do you say those subsidies were "bad"? Or is > >it only new subsidies that are "bad"? What has changed other than who > >are the economic royalists? WWHGsay? > > > >Bruce Leier > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Harry Pollard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2002 1:27 AM > > > To: Bruce Leier; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: RE: The Solar Economy > > > > > > Bruce, > > > > > > If the presenter was correct, the $27,000 cost of each wind turbine > >was > > > written off with special tax advantages. That was the point I was > >making. I > > > would be happy to have no subsidies of any kind for any method of > >producing > > > power. > > > > > > As it is, how does that $27,000 mix into the cost pkh? > > > > > > Harry > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Bruce wrote: > > > > > > >Harry, > > > > > > > >Seems to be a lot of conclusions and judgments without many facts or > > > >much data. What was the cost pkh? What is the cost pkh? Give us > >that; > > > >then we can discuss something. > > > > > > > >Bruce Leier > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner- > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Harry Pollard > > > > > Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 5:27 PM > > > > > To: Karen Watters Cole; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Cc: Keith Hudson > > > > > Subject: RE: The Solar Economy > > > > > > > > > > Karen, > > > > > > > > > > I was waiting to give a paper at an AAAS annual conference > >(obviously, > > > >my > > > > > paper was the reason for good attendance). The guy ahead of me was > > > >giving a > > > > > paper on the economics of wind turbines. I had vaguely notice in > >the > > > >LA > > > > > Times proposals for investment in these things. The ads were > >careful > > > >to say > > > > > you needed an income of $250,000 - or a net worth rather more than > > > >that. If > > > > > you qualified, you could reap lucrative rewards from government > >tax > > > >breaks. > > > > > > > > > > He estimated that each wind turbine cost $27,000 - hidden in the > >tax > > > > > breaks, and never appearing in any balance sheet. My thought was > > > >forget > > > > > them as an energy source except in special locations. The > >economist > > > >had > > > > > other ideas. His recommendation was that the tax break system > >should > > > >end. > > > > > Instead, there should be direct subsidy by the Federal government. > >The > > > >fact > > > > > that the electricity produced was prohibitively expensive > >apparently > > > >didn't > > > > > occur to him. > > > > > > > > > > That was 20-30 years ago. I assume that during this time, the cost > >of > > > >a > > > > > turbine has gone up, but the efficiency of the turbines will also > >have > > > >gone > > > > > up. I wonder what the cost of a kilowatt is now? > > > > > > > > > > The economist's advice was taken. If you install a wind turbine, > > > >California > > > > > will now pay half the cost along with giving a tax credit of 7.5%. > > > > > > > > > > I don't know how the new wind-farms are financed. > > > > > > > > > > The put the solars out in the desert. Didn't help. > > > > > > > > > > Solar hot water heaters are in the yellow pages in Florida. They > >are > > > >also > > > > > used, I understand, all over North Africa. But, so far, as a > > > >replacement > > > > > for coal, oil, or nuclear - no luck. > > > > > > > > > > Fuel cells don't produce power, though from the excitement they > >cause, > > > >one > > > > > would think they are the definitive answer to non-renewables. The > > > >answer to > > > > > their use at the moment is Bah! Humbug! > > > > > > > > > > In Southern California. now the daily temperature is down into the > > > >60's - > > > > > practically freezing. (We may even get some rain in the next few > > > >days.) So > > > > > playing with these toys isn't crucial. But, in the North-East and > > > >Mid-West > > > > > they can't heat their homes with fantasies. Babies with pneumonia > > > >aren't a > > > > > pretty sight. > > > > > > > > > > So, the alternatives aren't particularly practical. They may > >become so > > > >in > > > > > due course, but at the moment - Marley's ghost has nothing to > >offer. > > > > > > > > > > Bah, Humbug! > > > > > > > > > > Harry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >- > > > >----------- > > > > > > > > > > Karen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >Harry, you are such a Scrooge: Bah, Humbug on all these new > >fangled > > > >energy > > > > > >projects! > > > > > > > > > > > >Light bulbs weren't that great when first invented. Telephones > >are > > > >much > > > > > >improved, some would say not for our benefit. Everyone agrees > >the > > > >auto is a > > > > > >better vehicle for transportation that the family mule, though a > > > >mule's > > > > > >emissions problems didn't impact as wide an area as airborne > >carbons > > > >do now > > > > > >and it could be recycled. We don't even want to start a thread > >about > > > >how > > > > > >much better medical science is that how it was practiced > >initially. > > > > > > > > > > > >Your arguments below against newer developments into sustainable > > > >energy > > > > > >projects seem to reflect the bottom line that if it doesn't work > >for > > > >me, > > > > > >right here in my own backyard, then it is doomed to failure. > >Sure, > > > >the new > > > > > >ideas are still being developed and will probably be best used as > > > >backups in > > > > > >the energy grid, but we need all the backups we can use. I > >haven't > > > >noticed > > > > > >too many people in California voluntarily riding their bikes to > >work, > > > >using > > > > > >oil lamps at home unless forced to by blackouts. > > > > > > > > > > > >Call me a Pollyanna, but I think that attempts to broaden our > >base > > > >for > > > > > >energy sources should be considered. No matter that they've just > > > >discovered > > > > > >huge wells of natural gas off the coast of India, (1) or that > >there > > > >may be a > > > > > >pipeline through northern Russia for its oil in another decade, > >we > > > >have to > > > > > >look at the needs of the future, not just living off the past. > > > > > > > > > > > >PacificCorp built a wind farm between Portland and Pendleton, > >Oregon > > > >in 3 > > > > > >months last fall. Works great and annoys just the birds, not the > > > >cows. PGE > > > > > >built a smaller-sized urban power plant in 6 months, and it > > > >immediately > > > > > >began acting as a supplement to the bigger plants. Some cities > >have > > > >tapped > > > > > >into their underground aquifers to heating city buildings, saving > > > >taxpayer > > > > > >money. It all adds up, and the supplements are accomplished > >quickly > > > >without > > > > > >huge voter or corporate commitment. > > > > > > > > > > > >So they weren't smart enough to put wind farms out in the > >countryside > > > >in S. > > > > > >California. The ones between the Bay Area and San Joaquin Valley > > > >have been > > > > > >in place since when, the 70s? Wouldn't those poles cycling in > >the > > > >wind be a > > > > > >nicer view interruption than oil rigs off the Southern coastline, > > > >say, that > > > > > >long stretch south of LA known as Camp Pendleton where nobody > >cares > > > >what the > > > > > >view is anyway? I am not aware of any windmill pollution or > >spill > > > >dangers. > > > > > >Since Pendleton is an Army base, there shouldn't be aircraft > >landing > > > > > >conflicts. > > > > > > > > > > > >And if they can't succeed with solar in lovely San Diego, then > > > >someone just > > > > > >had a bad business plan. Too much of the delay in building new > > > >nuclear > > > > > >power plants is the argument about retooling them and what tax > > > >credits can > > > > > >be had or denied. Then they take forever to construct and have > >to be > > > > > >recertified every 5 years (I think, still), a very time-consuming > > > >process. > > > > > >It's not the R&D, it's the profit line that is cramping the > >future of > > > > > >energy. > > > > > > > > > > > >Bush's energy vision is in the past. Individual states are > >moving > > > >ahead in > > > > > >spite of him, not following his leadership (2). Coal may be > > > >plentiful, but > > > > > >pulling it out of the earth is devastating large swaths of coal > > > >country, > > > > > >polluting rivers and drinking water for many communities. We > >have to > > > >have > > > > > >other options besides these old fossils. > > > > > > > > > > > >To quote Tufts Prof. Agyeman on sustainability, "It isn't rocket > > > >science; > > > > > >it's plain common sense. It's not about no growth, but a > >different > > > >kind of > > > > > >growth. It's about using more of our unlimited mental resources > >and > > > >less of > > > > > >our limited natural resources. It's about not using up our > >natural > > > >capital > > > > > >such as wilderness areas, forests, a fish stock or an aquifer, > >but > > > >living > > > > > >off the harvest and other ecological services they provide." (3) > > > > > > > > > > > >Karen > > > > > >East of Portland, West of the Windmills > > > > > >1. Big Gas Fields Found in Indian Waters @ > > > > > > > >http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/13/business/worldbusiness/13GAS.html. > > > > > >2. On Global Warming, States Act Locally @ > > > > > > > >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36696-2002Nov10.html > > > > > >3. From Responsibility to Sustainability @ > > > > > >http://www.msnbc.com/news/783068.asp > > > > > >Harry wrote: If there was any place that solar power could work, > > > >it's in > > > > > >Southern California, where sunshine is the rule rather than the > > > >exception. > > > > > >Yet, solar power failed here in spite of government subsidy and > > > >complete > > > > > >relief from property taxes. > > > > > > > > > > > >That eventually it may become less expensive, or non-renewables > >might > > > >become > > > > > >more expensive may change things, but that's not now. > > > > > > > > > > > >Even if one forgets the cost, there is still the environmental > > > >impact. Both > > > > > >solar and wind take up enormous areas to produce the same energy > >as a > > > > > >modern power station. Wind makes lots of noise and people a mile > >or > > > >more > > > > > >away are bothered by the continuous onslaught on their ears. > > > > > > > > > > > >There seem to be only two probabilities - coal and nuclear. The > >US > > > >has coal > > > > > >that could last us for several thousand years. It can be sent > >through > > > >a > > > > > >pipeline too, if necessary. Nuclear is a best bet. The technology > >we > > > >are > > > > > >using is 3-4 decades old. New nuclear furnaces apparently don't > > > >require > > > > > >coolant or containment shells. > > > > > > > > > > > >Fuel cells are the biggie at the moment even though they produce > >no > > > >power. > > > > > >(Haven't these people learned anything at school?) > > > > > > > > > > > >If important people are beginning to discover the uselessness of > > > >Kyoto, > > > > > >could we say they are following a prescient George W. Bush? > > > > > > > > > ****************************** > > > Harry Pollard > > > Henry George School of LA > > > Box 655 > > > Tujunga CA 91042 > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Tel: (818) 352-4141 > > > Fax: (818) 353-2242 > > > ******************************* > > > > > > > > > >--- > >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > >Version: 6.0.427 / Virus Database: 240 - Release Date: 12/6/2002 > > ****************************** > Harry Pollard > Henry George School of LA > Box 655 > Tujunga CA 91042 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Tel: (818) 352-4141 > Fax: (818) 353-2242 > ******************************* _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
