Global warming 'confirmed' by independent study
-
No one ever said anything about changing them overnight... People replace their cars anyway, when they break down, or when it becomes too expensive to maintain or operate them. As gas prices go up, non-electric cars become more expensive.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
No one ever said anything about changing them overnight... People replace their cars anyway, when they break down, or when it becomes too expensive to maintain or operate them. As gas prices go up, non-electric cars become more expensive.
That statement means nothing and it certainly doesn't contradict anything I said. If an alternative comes along that is 'better' then the market will drive that conversion. Could be electric, could be hydrogen, could be fusion. Could be a cultural change the removes the need for powered transportation.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
Nothing, because the utility companies would do it.
What? Either you are trying to be funny or you really, really need to learn more about economics.
No this is exactly how it works. Utility companies invest in themselves. They're not just churning out a profit and letting their hardware rot away, they maintain & upgrade. Or in the case of water supply, they churn out a bigger profit than allowed by price fixing. But it's crucial that the govt doesn't ask them to upgrade, because that would surely cost tax money.
-
ict558 wrote:
Another analogy! (I Googled.) Be God! The boy's full of 'em.
That would be a simile, actually
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
That would be a simile, actually
Ah, well, you'd be knowing that, sor, what with your edjakation. But ain't similes more, er, pithy? Sort of a short analogy? Even as I'm like Jesus - in the sense that I am a narrator of illustrative analogies and parables , it's no simile. You may have your simile, sor, if you wish, but I will stick with my analogy.
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
More importantly why would you need to build a new dsitribution network? Isn't that the point of using the electrical grid? The network already exists. An electrical grid is supplied by any plant that produces electricity beit a coal plant, wind farm or any thing else. Input who cares, output must be electricity.
Because, in the the US, the power grid is running at close to max capacity almost everywhere.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
You have 'somewhat' valid points at the end, but switching power plants has little to do with economics and more to do with politics. If a region is pushing to be green they tend to convert their plants because it looked good for some politician. The reason it looked good mostly stems from a green push in society in that area. Again, nothing to do with economics.
What? First it is a matter of adding not switching. Adding costs more. Second, and again, if the cars were substantially 'better' then the need would drive politics. They are not 'better' in almost all ways. Thus politics is only relevant in that a solution that isn't better is being pushed.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
As for a consumer choosing one vehicle over the other, it really depends on the consumer. Some consumers will pay more for less power, just because it has a "Green" sticker on it and others will even pay more for less power because it does NOT have a "Green" sticker (yes they exist). These 2 extremes make a range that most rational thought of car purchases falls into. This is where the 'economics' for the most part resides.
Not even close. Most people base their decisions on factors like initial cost, power, brand name, previous experience, recommendations, maintenace costs etc. And for most 'normal' people the first factor, initial cost, is going to be the most significant factor. The fact that some people buy green and some people avoid green is no more satistically relevant than that some people only buy motorcycles.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
However, even that is controllable and thus far has proven to work.
Doesn't prove anything to me. Hybrids are not electric. And the fact that a market exists doesn't prove anything. There is a market for high end performance cars as well. Does
jschell wrote:
Because, in the the US, the power grid is running at close to max capacity almost everywhere.
That would mean the US does not build a 'new' distribution grid but actually extends it. Which it does so anyways. Arguing against putting something on the electrical grid because it will overload it is like saying we should have 2 different internets because it will help bandwidth.
jschell wrote:
What?
First it is a matter of adding not switching. Adding costs more.
Second, and again, if the cars were substantially 'better' then the need would drive politics. They are not 'better' in almost all ways. Thus politics is only relevant in that a solution that isn't better is being pushed.'Better'. Now thats an interesting word. Better by what? Better because it produces more power? Nope that dont' matter. Better because it is cleaner? Nope... Hmmm so what gets a new power plant up and running. Some Politician says its 'better' to his followers and it is voted in because of that. Then pushes the agenda through. If that politician claims that sacrificing chickens to the Thunder god Thor is a better means to produce electricity, and his voters buy into it, we will soon have thousands of chicken sacrificing power plants. Wether they produce electricity or not... Well that is actually irelevant. The point is politics alone gets the prize here.
jschell wrote:
Not even close.
Not even close. Most people base their decisions on factors like initial cost, power, brand name, previous experience, recommendations, maintenace costs etc. And for most 'normal' people the first factor, initial cost, is going to be the most significant factor.
The fact that some people buy green and some people avoid green is no more satistically relevant than that some people only buy motorcycles.Did you read what I wrote? Because you just re-itterated it with out my 'outliers' remark. The range of people we are talking about is the extremes (the outliers). All those imbetween care about other markers, of which the most important is cost. Which as I pointed out is why the tax subsidies work. I may be out 8K this year, but if I get it back in April and my car costs $200 less to drive a month its a no brainer (that is why Hyrbid took the market share they did.. Full e
-
Ahh, yet again, the personal attack. Nice to see the 'can't argue the facts, attck the speaker' mentality is still good and stong in your camp. Good. The more you do it, the more stupid you look. :) The facts are just piling up aren't they? BEST, no warming for 13 years. No positive feedbacks. Extreme weather at a low. Meanwhile forest growth is on the up, deserts are shrinking, crop yields are going up year on year. Just hurts so much when you can't argue the facts eh? ;P Go back to your esoteric, elevated world, and leave reality to those who can look at it honestly.
============================== Nothing to say.
Now, Eric, WristiSlaps is an MD. The good Doctor probably has to deal with any number of people Googling their symptoms, then attending Surgery only to provide a diagnosis and demand the treatment based upon Googled pseudo-knowledge. It is no wonder, then, that all who question peer-reviewed science are held in such contempt. Mount Rocinante, Doc Quixote, champion of Dulciciencia! Go tilt at those who tilt at windmills! (But what about those patients with the intelligence to research and understand their illness? If they wish to discuss its treatment with the good Doctor, are they shown the same contempt?)
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
No one ever said anything about changing them overnight... People replace their cars anyway, when they break down, or when it becomes too expensive to maintain or operate them. As gas prices go up, non-electric cars become more expensive.
That statement means nothing and it certainly doesn't contradict anything I said. If an alternative comes along that is 'better' then the market will drive that conversion. Could be electric, could be hydrogen, could be fusion. Could be a cultural change the removes the need for powered transportation.
jschell wrote:
If an alternative comes along that is 'better' then the market will drive that conversion. Could be electric, could be hydrogen, could be fusion. Could be a cultural change the removes the need for powered transportation.
This is the basis of capitalsm however, industries were smaller then. When talking about the car industry it has literlly billions of lives and trillions of dollars at stake. No leader in the industry can afford (espeacially after the last few years) to venture out and find the 'better' tech. And even if they could 'better' tech does not necessarily win. Not only that, the car industry is so coupled with the oil industry what makes you think they want anything to change? Just because I and everyone else wants a 'better' car does not make it magically appear. It is a step and repeat process. And sometimes we have to force the industry to make the change because they are fat greedy ba$tard$.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
Nothing, because the utility companies would do it.
What? Either you are trying to be funny or you really, really need to learn more about economics.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
Nothing, because the utility companies would do it.
What? Either you are trying to be funny or you really, really need to learn more about economics.
-
No this is exactly how it works. Utility companies invest in themselves. They're not just churning out a profit and letting their hardware rot away, they maintain & upgrade. Or in the case of water supply, they churn out a bigger profit than allowed by price fixing. But it's crucial that the govt doesn't ask them to upgrade, because that would surely cost tax money.
I assume your utility companies are public companies, US and UK ones arent, so there is a fundamental difference you need to understand about how the two are funded becaue when the end user is the sole source of income, then he is going to pay for everything. Period.
============================== Nothing to say.
-
Now, Eric, WristiSlaps is an MD. The good Doctor probably has to deal with any number of people Googling their symptoms, then attending Surgery only to provide a diagnosis and demand the treatment based upon Googled pseudo-knowledge. It is no wonder, then, that all who question peer-reviewed science are held in such contempt. Mount Rocinante, Doc Quixote, champion of Dulciciencia! Go tilt at those who tilt at windmills! (But what about those patients with the intelligence to research and understand their illness? If they wish to discuss its treatment with the good Doctor, are they shown the same contempt?)
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
Indeed, Fistedchuff is a symptom of his own superiority complex. No one can be as clever as him, no one can be as scientific, and yet he is an angry fool incapable of debate. In anycase, given how often doctors misdiagnose I would always validate their opinions with google. :)
============================== Nothing to say.
-
Indeed, Fistedchuff is a symptom of his own superiority complex. No one can be as clever as him, no one can be as scientific, and yet he is an angry fool incapable of debate. In anycase, given how often doctors misdiagnose I would always validate their opinions with google. :)
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
Indeed, Fistedchuff is a symptom of his own superiority complex. No one can be as clever as him, no one can be as scientific, and yet he is an angry fool incapable of debate.
He's been there. He knows that arguing about scientific phenomena when your only qualification is that you've read a bunch of blogs on the Internet is basically futile. At least read this[^] first.
-
I assume your utility companies are public companies, US and UK ones arent, so there is a fundamental difference you need to understand about how the two are funded becaue when the end user is the sole source of income, then he is going to pay for everything. Period.
============================== Nothing to say.
-
It is Funny isnt it, Ian aparantly works in the finance sector, yet has such an immature view of things that one has to wonder in what capacity. Perhaps he cleans toilets! :)
============================== Nothing to say.
It's actually not Ian that's having these views, the Janitors name is harold.
Light moves faster than sound. That is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak. List of common misconceptions
-
Of course they are, but they're already paying for it so it's not going to cost anything extra
Yes it will, as there will be a need for added capacity there will be a need for more funding = a larger bill for the customer.
Light moves faster than sound. That is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak. List of common misconceptions
-
I assume your utility companies are public companies, US and UK ones arent, so there is a fundamental difference you need to understand about how the two are funded becaue when the end user is the sole source of income, then he is going to pay for everything. Period.
============================== Nothing to say.
For UK water companies at least there is a difference between capital and revenue income streams, and what they can spend on what from each is fixed by legislation. Also every penny of any proposed price increases have to be justified. The vast majority of the increase in the costs of water production and supply are from the increase in electricity prices. There are massive demands from government to reduce carbon, the only way to do that from a water company perspective is to move less water around. The only way to do that is to get people on meters and then push the price up. When you do that you make far more money than you need and the government takes it in fines because you are not allowed to make more money than you need.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
-
Yes it will, as there will be a need for added capacity there will be a need for more funding = a larger bill for the customer.
Light moves faster than sound. That is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak. List of common misconceptions
-
It's actually not Ian that's having these views, the Janitors name is harold.
Light moves faster than sound. That is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak. List of common misconceptions
-
It's actually not Ian that's having these views, the Janitors name is harold.
Light moves faster than sound. That is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak. List of common misconceptions
-
Larger bill for customer = losing customers. Besides if they have any brains at all over there they have been saving up for the upgrade ever since the previous upgrade.
harold aptroot wrote:
Larger bill for customer = losing customers.
They wouldn't lose any outside the margin. All power companies would need to do this upgrade. so the only real choice for the customers would be to skip being connected to the grid
harold aptroot wrote:
Besides if they have any brains at all over there they have been saving up for the upgrade ever since the previous upgrade.
That's not how it works. When they need to upgrade, they will take a really big loan covering the costs and push the amortization and interest on to the customer.
Light moves faster than sound. That is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak. List of common misconceptions