ForumGarden

Well Congress or more accurately the Democrats in Congress are off and running to show they will deliver on promises and are seeking the low hanging fruit.

On the top of the list is REQUIRING utilities to generate 15% of their energy from renewable sources by 2020. If my math serves me well, that is about eleven years from now. :-2

Does anyone seriously think that if renewable energy were a viable option, a cost effective option, a technically feasible option that utilities in the US would not be anxious to pursue that alternative in their best interests? :-5

I have worked for one of the largest of such utilities for over 47 years and we are looking at all such options, we looked at battery storage twenty years ago, we have tried solar and now are investing in wind, we just plunked down $20 million in a new concept to store wind power.

The problems are many such a reliability, adequate transmission lines, the “not in my back yard syndrome among them.

So, now I harp on my favorite theme, unintended consequences. The last thing we need is Grandma Pelosi and friends to legislate mandates for energy in a nearsighted attempt to appease certain groups and make the uniformed public feel good.

The point is that safe, reliable less polluting sources of energy is what everyone wants including the utilities, but that will happen not because some politico says it will, but because the public demands it and is willing to pay for it, I say again, is willing to pay for it.

No doubt you are happy with your current electeric and gas bill.

Nuclear energy remains the least costly of the non-polluting energy sources (that is once the federal government gets off it duff and after twenty years decides what to do with spent fuel).

It appears we have not learned our lessons from the auto industry where Congressional mandates resulted in cars people didn’t want to buy. And, by the way, have you tried to find a plug in electric station lately?

The next time you hear what sounds like a great idea from Grandma and Harry think “are there any unintended consequences or don’t they matter.

posted by quinns commentary

It appears we have not learned our lessons from the auto industry where Congressional mandates resulted in cars people didn’t want to buy. And, by the way, have you tried to find a plug in electric station lately?


Do you mean all the big suv's that gm and the like are having trouble selling? I thought they were excused from meeting emission and fuel efficiency requirements and that now no one wants them because they cost too much to run?

Yes, you would think they would.

But then you would also imagine that all businesses would always look to make sure that their long term futures were safeguarded, unfortunately recent events show this is absolutely not the case. These companies (as well as most others) have been run in the recent for maximum profit with minimum regulation or investment and to hell with the future. Its not because the individuals involved particularly believe thats a good idea, but thats how the system that regulates businesses is generally set up in the Anglo-Saxon world.

Of course the people who run energy companies are not stupid, and there are issues and problems related with trying to make energy supply sustainable, secure, and as non-polluting as possible, but be under no illusion that the main barrier is the refusal to contemplate reduced short term profits, or any reduction in short term share prices in order to allow for investment in difficult, long term projects. This is not an individual failing, its a systematic problem.

How is it that a country like Finland can generate 23 percent of its entire energy needs through secure nationally based sources of renewable, while my own country Ireland (which has similar wealth and resources) can only manage 2 percent? At the present time, we import 90 percent of our energy via fossil fuels, that is unsustainable, and yet the system is being perpetuated because at the moment it suits everyone, but if we don't change radically we are going to encounter an energy crunch every bit as bad as the energy crunch.

Galbally;1075864 wrote: Yes, you would think they would.

But then you would also imagine that all businesses would always look to make sure that their long term futures were safeguarded, unfortunately recent events show this is absolutely not the case. These companies (as well as most others) have been run in the recent for maximum profit with minimum regulation or investment and to hell with the future. Its not because the individuals involved particularly believe thats a good idea, but thats how the system that regulates businesses is generally set up in the Anglo-Saxon world.

Of course the people who run energy companies are not stupid, and there are issues and problems related with trying to make energy supply sustainable, secure, and as non-polluting as possible, but be under no illusion that the main barrier is the refusal to contemplate reduced short term profits, or any reduction in short term share prices in order to allow for investment in difficult, long term projects. This is not an individual failing, its a systematic problem.

How is it that a country like Finland can generate 23 percent of its entire energy needs through secure nationally based sources of renewable, while my own country Ireland (which has similar wealth and resources) can only manage 2 percent? At the present time, we import 90 percent of our energy via fossil fuels, that is unsustainable, and yet the system is being perpetuated because at the moment it suits everyone, but if we don't change radically we are going to encounter an energy crunch every bit as bad as the energy crunch.


Shortsightedness and the next quarters earnings report are a problem, but demand from customers trumps all in my view and the winds of change are certainly with us (no pun intended), at least until people get used to $47.00 oil and ignore all the green stuff again. Companies went into nuclear for their benefit and they were very long term and very costly projects, I see alternative energy as no different. Part of the problem with nuclear is the long and cumbersome regulatory process, public opposition and the like. So while government mandates change, it is also one of the main stumbling blocks to innovation and the change it seeks.

We just got approval to proceed with an offshore wind project, but the license and rest of the process will takes years to accomplish.

I'm not sure which is worse, the mandates or the regulation.

gmc;1075855 wrote: posted by quinns commentary



Do you mean all the big suv's that gm and the like are having trouble selling? I thought they were excused from meeting emission and fuel efficiency requirements and that now no one wants them because they cost too much to run?


Actually I was referring to the small stuff that was largely ignored in favor of the SUVs that people did want to buy. So mandated fuel efficiency was thwarted by people buying very inefficient cars which are now not in demand because market forces made them undesirable (at least for the time being). What is the point of forcing something unless there is a demand for it?

If we want to go the mandate route we simply say every persons second car must be some type of hybrid or electric car and be done with it. Then business would compete for the most attractive of such vehicle...not going to happen because it is far easier to mandate for business and ignore the consequences.

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1075958 wrote: Shortsightedness and the next quarters earnings report are a problem, but demand from customers trumps all in my view and the winds of change are certainly with us (no pun intended), at least until people get used to $47.00 oil and ignore all the green stuff again. Companies went into nuclear for their benefit and they were very long term and very costly projects, I see alternative energy as no different. Part of the problem with nuclear is the long and cumbersome regulatory process, public opposition and the like. So while government mandates change, it is also one of the main stumbling blocks to innovation and the change it seeks.

We just got approval to proceed with an offshore wind project, but the license and rest of the process will takes years to accomplish.

I'm not sure which is worse, the mandates or the regulation.


Me, me, me, me. That is the name of American business these days. No one cares about doing a good job. They just care if they look good at the company meeting. They dont want to invest in the future even if the present is not sustainable and they know it. Whoever is in charge of making these decisions will retire pretty soon. They figure the chit will hit the fan on the next guy's watch. It will be on the next guy's/gal's balance sheet. It is not even shortsightedness because that implies that a person is unable to see the long term consequences. It is self-centeredness...is that a word? "I get to retire with mine...and I dont care about leaving a mess to the next guy...or to future generations. I got mine"

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1075977 wrote: Actually I was referring to the small stuff that was largely ignored in favor of the SUVs that people did want to buy. So mandated fuel efficiency was thwarted by people buying very inefficient cars which are now not in demand because market forces made them undesirable (at least for the time being). What is the point of forcing something unless there is a demand for it?

If we want to go the mandate route we simply say every persons second car must be some type of hybrid or electric car and be done with it. Then business would compete for the most attractive of such vehicle...not going to happen because it is far easier to mandate for business and ignore the consequences.


People prefer bigger cars is what you're saying, which is why people kept on buying them. But there's no reason why a big SUV can't be economical, your manufacturers just dodged facing up to a future reality. Over here they're trendy as well and sales were booming for things like pick-ups because they were relatively cheap compared to most off roaders and a tax break if you were a business-you could claim it as a commercial vehicle. but the cost of petrol was a major driving force in economy most the big off roaders are diesel and compared to american equivalents far more economical. I like bog cars as well but when it come right down to it 50 to the gallon is better than 30 and if you do a high mileage a major consideration.

The actual size of them is a different issue over here. I can see the point in a country with big open spaces like the US and wide roads but here you have people who have no need for four wheel drive driving cars that are bigger than a lot of the parking spaces and round narrow country roads where they think the middle belongs to them. A lot of our cities were built when most people walked everywhere and the streets just can't take the traffic.

wildhorses;1076807 wrote: Me, me, me, me. That is the name of American business these days. No one cares about doing a good job. They just care if they look good at the company meeting. They dont want to invest in the future even if the present is not sustainable and they know it. Whoever is in charge of making these decisions will retire pretty soon. They figure the chit will hit the fan on the next guy's watch. It will be on the next guy's/gal's balance sheet. It is not even shortsightedness because that implies that a person is unable to see the long term consequences. It is self-centeredness...is that a word? "I get to retire with mine...and I dont care about leaving a mess to the next guy...or to future generations. I got mine"


Hey, just like politicians who are spending the next generations money today! :-5

gmc;1076855 wrote: People prefer bigger cars is what you're saying, which is why people kept on buying them. But there's no reason why a big SUV can't be economical, your manufacturers just dodged facing up to a future reality. Over here they're trendy as well and sales were booming for things like pick-ups because they were relatively cheap compared to most off roaders and a tax break if you were a business-you could claim it as a commercial vehicle. but the cost of petrol was a major driving force in economy most the big off roaders are diesel and compared to american equivalents far more economical. I like bog cars as well but when it come right down to it 50 to the gallon is better than 30 and if you do a high mileage a major consideration.

The actual size of them is a different issue over here. I can see the point in a country with big open spaces like the US and wide roads but here you have people who have no need for four wheel drive driving cars that are bigger than a lot of the parking spaces and round narrow country roads where they think the middle belongs to them. A lot of our cities were built when most people walked everywhere and the streets just can't take the traffic.


Good points, but here the people with the big SUVs have no need for them either, they drive around these monsters in the city and they will never see a country road. The excuse is they need to haul around the kids. Well, my wife and I had four children in five years and we never even had a station wagon, just mid size sedans and we made out fine for many years.

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1077641 wrote: Hey, just like politicians who are spending the next generations money today! :-5


Yes exactly like that. Everything ends up in a mess but the person or people responsible are long gone.

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1077646 wrote: Good points, but here the people with the big SUVs have no need for them either, they drive around these monsters in the city and they will never see a country road. The excuse is they need to haul around the kids. Well, my wife and I had four children in five years and we never even had a station wagon, just mid size sedans and we made out fine for many years.


They're not buying them now though which is presumably why the big three is in so much trouble. That and poor build quality-which I read somewhere not being in a position to make my own assessment.

Oil is a finite resource, not to make plans for it's eventual running out is just plain silly. There are more important things we need oil for than burning in cars.

posted by quinns commentary

Does anyone seriously think that if renewable energy were a viable option, a cost effective option, a technically feasible option that utilities in the US would not be anxious to pursue that alternative in their best interests?


Most things aren't viable options till somebody works out how to do it. Much original innovation comes from pure research for it's own sake not companies trying to invent something. The guys that invented lasers weren't trying to invent point of sale systems or shoot down aircraft they were experimenting with light beams what to use them for came later. The steam engine was invented by someone that wanted to drain mines not build railways. The guy that discovered how to refine oil used coal and shale first up

If you take the attitude that it's not viable or worth experimenting with you are most certainly right. Don't worry though you will probably be able to import the expertise from abroad.

Most things aren't viable options till somebody works out how to do it. Much original innovation comes from pure research for it's own sake not companies trying to invent something. The guys that invented lasers weren't trying to invent point of sale systems or shoot down aircraft they were experimenting with light beams what to use them for came later. The steam engine was invented by someone that wanted to drain mines not build railways. The guy that discovered how to refine oil used coal and shale first up

If you take the attitude that it's not viable or worth experimenting with you are most certainly right. Don't worry though you will probably be able to import the expertise from abroad.


My point is not that they are not viable, but that the energy companies are looking to make them viable and to explore alternatives and that as soon as they can find the right combination to make it work they will do so because they will be able to make money doing it, but simply to have the government set a mandate or throw money at it does not mean it will happen. I think we are on the sasme page.

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1081587 wrote: My point is not that they are not viable, but that the energy companies are looking to make them viable and to explore alternatives and that as soon as they can find the right combination to make it work they will do so because they will be able to make money doing it, but simply to have the government set a mandate or throw money at it does not mean it will happen. I think we are on the sasme page.


I think mostly we all are on the same page, but it has to be kept in mind that the Western governments have more or less let consumption run rampant in recent decades, and as societies in recent times we have put very little thought into seriously trying to decouple living standards from gross consumption. Its very important to not cloud those two things together, just because consumption is measurable, doesn't mean it automatically equates to a better way of life.

Thats not just the Government's problem, of course, but as an institution the government does have a role in trying to promote a more sane way of life, resource exploitation, and economic system, that we can sustain long term, and provide something for future generations that at present are just going to have to inherit a total mess.

Sometimes it happens eh?:-6

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1075828 wrote: Well Congress or more accurately the Democrats in Congress are off and running to show they will deliver on promises and are seeking the low hanging fruit.

On the top of the list is REQUIRING utilities to generate 15% of their energy from renewable sources by 2020. If my math serves me well, that is about eleven years from now. :-2

Does anyone seriously think that if renewable energy were a viable option, a cost effective option, a technically feasible option that utilities in the US would not be anxious to pursue that alternative in their best interests? :-5

I have worked for one of the largest of such utilities for over 47 years and we are looking at all such options, we looked at battery storage twenty years ago, we have tried solar and now are investing in wind, we just plunked down $20 million in a new concept to store wind power.

The problems are many such a reliability, adequate transmission lines, the “not in my back yard syndrome among them.

So, now I harp on my favorite theme, unintended consequences. The last thing we need is Grandma Pelosi and friends to legislate mandates for energy in a nearsighted attempt to appease certain groups and make the uniformed public feel good.

The point is that safe, reliable less polluting sources of energy is what everyone wants including the utilities, but that will happen not because some politico says it will, but because the public demands it and is willing to pay for it, I say again, is willing to pay for it.

No doubt you are happy with your current electeric and gas bill.

Nuclear energy remains the least costly of the non-polluting energy sources (that is once the federal government gets off it duff and after twenty years decides what to do with spent fuel).

It appears we have not learned our lessons from the auto industry where Congressional mandates resulted in cars people didn’t want to buy. And, by the way, have you tried to find a plug in electric station lately?

The next time you hear what sounds like a great idea from Grandma and Harry think “are there any unintended consequences or don’t they matter.


There comes a point where the profit of a single company is less important than the cost to the country.

For a long time the majority of countries have said to companies that it is not acceptable for them to pollute the countryside just because it increases their profit leaving the state to pick up the bill for cleaning up.

In a similar way it is not unreasonable for the country to say that it is not acceptable to burn fossil fuels with gay abandon and dump CO2 into the atmosphere just because it is not viable for the companies bottom line - the cost to the country has to be taken into account.

The utility companies are *not* interested in providing non-polluting energy, they are interesting in providing energy at the cheapest possible cost to themselves and sometimes they need to be made to provide energy at the cheapest cost to the country.

I would agree with you that nuclear power is the way to go in the short term but action *must* be take in the long term interest of the country.

I want an SUV so we can have more seating. I've never seen them as some evil gas guzzling, polluting monsters. To each their own. *shrug*

Never mind the Italians have their priorities right.

Rome stages big cheese bailout for Parmesan - Europe, World - The Independent

Rome stages big cheese bailout for Parmesan