The price of trying to go green.

AVGWarhawk · 08-12-13, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Most definitely

And you know Jim, special incentives were offered on every appliance that was energy star we purchased. We received over $500.00 in Visa cards for purchasing the appliances. In short, our dryer was free. Did we spend a bit extra on a few appliances? Yes. Overall, the little bit extra we paid will be re-cooped in a few months via much lower electrical bills.

Jimbuna · 08-12-13, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

And you know Jim, special incentives were offered on every appliance that was energy star we purchased. We received over $500.00 in Visa cards for purchasing the appliances. In short, our dryer was free. Did we spend a bit extra on a few appliances? Yes. Overall, the little bit extra we paid will be re-cooped in a few months via much lower electrical bills.

Well I'd certainly go for it without the incentives but adding them into the equation makes it a golden opportunity...well done to you and the family

Wolferz · 08-12-13, 03:10 PM

Skybird,

They do need to recoup the investment in those wind turbines and give the dirty electricity producers their cut for using their transmission lines.
Then there's the maintenance on those turbines. etc etc ad nauseum.

Like you say Warhawk, I think it would be better all the way around by making homes and appliances more energy efficient. But, then the electricity producers are going to take a hit in the bank account and that will go over as well as a lead zeppelin.

I've done my part by replacing my old inefficient coal stoker with a new electronically controlled unit. It uses less coal and electricity for the same amount of heat.

My fridge and water heater are both energy star compliant too. The house has been insulated out the wazoo by milady's late husband who worked for the power company. We also replaced a side porch and the sliding door leading onto it. The porch is all recycled windows, which heats the living room to some degree in the winter. The sliding door is double paned glass. Very little heat loss there. We too see the smaller power bills.

Skybird · 08-12-13, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolferz

Skybird,

They do need to recoup the investment in those wind turbines and give the dirty electricity producers their cut for using their transmission lines.
Then there's the maintenance on those turbines. etc etc ad nauseum.

One would think so, yes, it sounds like the most likely and natural explanation, right?! Better think again.

The situation is much more absurd. Photovoltaic got pushed over here by subsidizing the installation of solar panels on private roofs and promising to pay private owners and companies alike a certain fee for each kW-hour produced. Those tax-payed investement subsidies for the most then were fetched by Chinese companies producing such panels, which helped them - with German tax money - to wipe the German solar panel industry off the market with cheap Chinese imports, with the German industry just some years ago having been both in quality and quantity world market leader - now, just a few years after that system was implemented by political-ideological will, practically all German solar panel producers have been destroyed, a German solar panel industry no longer exists. We subsidized the Chinese to do that to us! And we use tax money as well for making electricity needlessly more expensive the more sunny the day is!

I hate subsidies, always. They always mean to distort market mechanisms. Political regulation (planned economy) versus free market - guess my assessment the one versus the other...

Wind suffers from the same problem: subsidizing the production of wind energy; also, we do not have the infrastructure to transport the power from where it gets produced (the windy north) to the places where it is needed most: the South. According national powerlines have not been built, and we are still years away fro that. Since years we must spend millions every month to pay the maintenance of windwheels that are not linked to the powergrid, on land as well as offshore. First investors have moved out (or went bancrupt). It was all planned in total haste, for ideological reasons, and because nobody on this planet suffered so dearly from the Fukushima disaster as us poor Germans, you know.

What also helps to let costs explode for private households is that the government created many of exception rules for the industry. Almost all producing industry can get excluded fro these rises in prices for electricity. The difference - must be payed for by households to whose bills the differences from the industry get added.

They are so proud on the "deutsche Weg" (German way). Hah...! It is laughable and ridicules, a mouse that tries to roar! And not just on this question of green energy! That they seriously believe they do motivate the rest of the world to follow the German ways here, only illustrates the megalomaniac messiah syndrome they suffer from.

Wolferz · 08-12-13, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

One would think so, yes, it sounds like the most likely and natural explanation, right?! Better think again.

The situation is much more absurd. Photovoltaic got pushed over here by subsidizing the installation of solar panels on private roofs and promising to pay private owners and companies alike a certain fee for each kW-hour produced. Those tax-payed investement subsidies for the most then were fetched by Chinese companies producing such panels, which helped them - with German tax money - to wipe the German solar panel industry off the market with cheap Chinese imports, with the German industry just some years ago having been both in quality and quantity world market leader - now, just a few years after that system was implemented by political-ideological will, practically all German solar panel producers have been destroyed, a German solar panel industry no longer exists. We subsidized the Chinese to do that to us! And we use tax money as well for making electricity needlessly more expensive the more sunny the day is!

I hate subsidies, always. They always mean to distort market mechanisms. Political regulation (planned economy) versus free market - guess my assessment the one versus the other...

Wind suffers from the same problem: subsidizing the production of wind energy; also, we do not have the infrastructure to transport the power from where it gets produced (the windy north) to the places where it is needed most: the South. According national powerlines have not been built, and we are still years away fro that. Since years we must spend millions every month to pay the maintenance of windwheels that are not linked to the powergrid, on land as well as offshore. First investors have moved out (or went bancrupt). It was all planned in total haste, for ideological reasons, and because nobody on this planet suffered so dearly from the Fukushima disaster as us poor Germans, you know.

What also helps to let costs explode for private households is that the government created many of exception rules for the industry. Almost all producing industry can get excluded fro these rises in prices for electricity. The difference - must be payed for by households to whose bills the differences from the industry get added.

They are so proud on the "deutsche Weg" (German way). Hah...! It is laughable and ridicules, a mouse that tries to roar! And not just on this question of green energy! That they seriously believe they do motivate the rest of the world to follow the German ways here, only illustrates the megalomaniac messiah syndrome they suffer from.

I concur on all points and will only add that the great western industrialized nations have been hornswoggled into giving up to China that which made us great and they used or are using government subsidies to finance it. Win win for the corporations and lose lose for the rest of us.

Now let's see what grows after they finish plowing us under. I fear that the seeds of greed will only bear the fruits of anarchy on a near global scale.

BrucePartington · 08-13-13, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolferz

I concur on all points and will only add that the great western industrialized nations have been hornswoggled into giving up to China that which made us great and they used or are using government subsidies to finance it. Win win for the corporations and lose lose for the rest of us.

Now let's see what grows after they finish plowing us under. I fear that the seeds of greed will only bear the fruits of anarchy on a near global scale.

Amen to that.

I'd go even further as to say I think the real solution in the long run is for humans to start having less children, try to gradually reduce global population. Actually this is cyclically imposed on the world population, in the worst possible fashion, and "green" is the first thing to go out the window.
If there were only half of us, the pollution problem would be easier to deal with, along with other issues, such as mass unemployment world wide, and possible shortage of drinking water and food for our descendants.
The planet is finite, we cannot keep on multiplying forever. We have not yet developed 'warp drive' to enable us to....."spread to another area".

BTW, I do have a solar panel on my roof, made in Germany. And I've figured out how to recover and extend battery life. Main use of stored energy is for lighting indoors (12v LED's in all rooms), and power my laptop. I have not invested in a total independent system due to considering relocating.
I have also been toying with a brushless motor for conversion to a windmill.
Where I live, if PV production capacity is less than a Kwh, they leave you alone. Same for windmills less than 6 meters (18 ft) high.

Wolferz · 08-13-13, 09:18 AM

Going green adds another problem to the mix that wasn't considered...

The creation of clouds of smug. Don't believe me? Talk to the owners of a Toyota Pious Hybrid.

Skybird · 08-13-13, 10:41 AM

Bruce, you are right on population sizes, I too preach that since long. I would like to see a global population of not more than 1-1.5 billion. More this one planet cannot sustain for lasting dynamic balances of ecological give-and-take.

Getting there is a problem, though. I think man will nbot get there by regulation, but onlky by war, natural disaster, mass starevations and epidemic diseases. In other words: man will get there only by "natural" means. Sounds cynic, but is not meant cynically. Ma's attempts to tackle the problems and rescue all those hungry people, will worsen the situation until it goes beyond control.

The second big thing beside population control that must be achieved is to destroy the state-monopoly on money. If money again becomes a resource of real value and thus limited availability, the spending frenzies of politicians and the endless wishes of the electorate that they bribe to elect them, necessarily will come to an end and will get reduced to sustainable levels all by themselves. Real money< got destroyed and replaced with worthless paper money in order to enable politicians to not be limited in their spending desires. In a simulation game, it would be considered an infinite-money-cheat. Politicians must be prevented at all cost to regulate money, for a real money and where it goes and what it does is a indicator for the political acting of a state. That is the reason why they desperately try to regulate money: to hide their own mismanagement and crimes. Politicians must be prevented to print money just as much as they need new chips. They must be stopped and prevented from that at all costs. Paper money must get destroyed. It is a cheat - and a cheat with very disastrous side effects. Needless to say: the central banks thus have to be destroyed as well. Without paper money there is no need for them anymore anyway. Their only purpose is top regulate money and to print it as needed by politicians.

And the third necessity on my list: Western people must understand again that freedom is not to be sacrificed for social equality, that nature does not know a concept of everything being "equal", and that justice and social equality are two totally different things. The same law for everybody: yes. Everybody being made equal by taking from the one and giving to the other: no. People should not be given money (that got stolen from the few) and according to their needs, but they should have the right to earn according to their ability.

We strangle ourselves but wanting to regulate all and everything. Nature. Freedom. Social status. Inbred abilities and disabilities. Economy. Thinking. Risk assessment. Economic enterprise. What we achieve is that we discourage the talent, and that we turn handicaps into the norm, that we get fixated on compensating our weaknesses and over that lose our strengths and do not improve them. By that we finally fail for our own home-made mediocrity.

08-12-13, 03:10 PM	#3
Wolferz Navy Seal Join Date: May 2007 Location: On a mighty quest for the Stick of Truth Posts: 5,963 Downloads: 52 Uploads: 0	Skybird, They do need to recoup the investment in those wind turbines and give the dirty electricity producers their cut for using their transmission lines. Then there's the maintenance on those turbines. etc etc ad nauseum. Like you say Warhawk, I think it would be better all the way around by making homes and appliances more energy efficient. But, then the electricity producers are going to take a hit in the bank account and that will go over as well as a lead zeppelin. I've done my part by replacing my old inefficient coal stoker with a new electronically controlled unit. It uses less coal and electricity for the same amount of heat. My fridge and water heater are both energy star compliant too. The house has been insulated out the wazoo by milady's late husband who worked for the power company. We also replaced a side porch and the sliding door leading onto it. The porch is all recycled windows, which heats the living room to some degree in the winter. The sliding door is double paned glass. Very little heat loss there. We too see the smaller power bills. __________________ Tomorrow never comes

08-13-13, 09:18 AM	#7
Wolferz Navy Seal Join Date: May 2007 Location: On a mighty quest for the Stick of Truth Posts: 5,963 Downloads: 52 Uploads: 0	Going green adds another problem to the mix that wasn't considered... The creation of clouds of smug. Don't believe me? Talk to the owners of a Toyota Pious Hybrid. __________________ Tomorrow never comes

08-13-13, 10:41 AM	#8
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,602 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Bruce, you are right on population sizes, I too preach that since long. I would like to see a global population of not more than 1-1.5 billion. More this one planet cannot sustain for lasting dynamic balances of ecological give-and-take. Getting there is a problem, though. I think man will nbot get there by regulation, but onlky by war, natural disaster, mass starevations and epidemic diseases. In other words: man will get there only by "natural" means. Sounds cynic, but is not meant cynically. Ma's attempts to tackle the problems and rescue all those hungry people, will worsen the situation until it goes beyond control. The second big thing beside population control that must be achieved is to destroy the state-monopoly on money. If money again becomes a resource of real value and thus limited availability, the spending frenzies of politicians and the endless wishes of the electorate that they bribe to elect them, necessarily will come to an end and will get reduced to sustainable levels all by themselves. Real money< got destroyed and replaced with worthless paper money in order to enable politicians to not be limited in their spending desires. In a simulation game, it would be considered an infinite-money-cheat. Politicians must be prevented at all cost to regulate money, for a real money and where it goes and what it does is a indicator for the political acting of a state. That is the reason why they desperately try to regulate money: to hide their own mismanagement and crimes. Politicians must be prevented to print money just as much as they need new chips. They must be stopped and prevented from that at all costs. Paper money must get destroyed. It is a cheat - and a cheat with very disastrous side effects. Needless to say: the central banks thus have to be destroyed as well. Without paper money there is no need for them anymore anyway. Their only purpose is top regulate money and to print it as needed by politicians. And the third necessity on my list: Western people must understand again that freedom is not to be sacrificed for social equality, that nature does not know a concept of everything being "equal", and that justice and social equality are two totally different things. The same law for everybody: yes. Everybody being made equal by taking from the one and giving to the other: no. People should not be given money (that got stolen from the few) and according to their needs, but they should have the right to earn according to their ability. We strangle ourselves but wanting to regulate all and everything. Nature. Freedom. Social status. Inbred abilities and disabilities. Economy. Thinking. Risk assessment. Economic enterprise. What we achieve is that we discourage the talent, and that we turn handicaps into the norm, that we get fixated on compensating our weaknesses and over that lose our strengths and do not improve them. By that we finally fail for our own home-made mediocrity. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.