Global warming 'confirmed' by independent study
-
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
-
Sorry Ian. I was a little surprised. It is hard to know who is replying to who when the threads get this long. :)
============================== Nothing to say.
There are more people mixing things up today, harold didn't like me referencing your post.
Light moves faster than sound. That is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak. List of common misconceptions
-
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
Yea keep thinking that. Nuon Vaste Prijs is not going to raise its price because it contractually can't, and that's just one example. And some international player is going to undercut the others and steal all the other customers. So no, they couldn't do it like that.
-
There are more people mixing things up today, harold didn't like me referencing your post.
Light moves faster than sound. That is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak. List of common misconceptions
-
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.
Woods and Trees Ravel. You dont need to go into that kind of depth, since as even the IPCC says, 4/5ths of it has a "very low level of scientific understanding" The basic facts speak for themselves. No feedbacks, 12 years of slight cooling, no increase in severe weather and insuficient troposphere warming all cast a great deal of doubt on the CO2 = catastrophe theory. I prefer to look at the basic facts, as do many scientists. (It is called empiricism) Oh, plus the fact the earth has been a lot warmer this interglacial, Vostock and Greenland ice core data. SO there are lots of reasons to doubt the meager warming caused by CO2 is any problem at all.
============================== Nothing to say.