Risks. It costs ove
(12/1/2015)
Risks. It costs over $1 million USD to put up ONE winmdill So.. when you see 500 or 600 or 800 of them in a big field, you can calculate the cost One of them produces enough electricity to power, what . 5 houses? of all of the winmdills we have ALL OVER the us . thousands .. it only accounts for 1% of our energy. also, they are cool, but it sucks having millions of 400 foot tall winmdills dotting the what would otherwise be a beautiful landscape. also, there are only certain places in the world, certain types of landscapes that are truly conducive of having wimnlidls. and of those places, most of them have them already. and even there, they don't ALL ALWAYS spin.. when they aren't spinning, they aren't producing benefits . that's 1% less coal that we have to burn. but realistically, there doesn't HAVE to be ANY coal burned at this point. it could all be nuclear. meltdowns are very very very very very very very very very very very unlikely. the only reason they've ever had one was because the staff there didn't keep up with the equipment because they didn't feel they had to.. and of course there was a meltdown. The problem is the waste it produces. germany subsidizes solar power they allow the sale of solar energy by the public. because of that, there are TONS AND TONS AND TONS of solar panels all over the place, and about 46% of their energy COMES from solar whereas 2% of the US's power comes from solar. problem is, if it's dark, it's not producing there are ways to convert water into electricity, but governments won't allow it. sea water could be filtered, have electrolytes added, hydrolyze to an unstable liquid, and burned by machines that generate electricity there's an over abundance of sea water, and hell the level is getting higher each year is it not? the only biproduct of such a thing would be atomized water not co2. http://mavmdccbf.com [url=http://nwyrdic.com]nwyrdic[/url] [link=http://vwmnwosi.com]vwmnwosi[/link]
Congrats on the lett
(12/1/2015)
Congrats on the letter. Your coemtnms are interesting and important.I have one major comment about policies to mitigate climate change due to emissions from the energy sector, and another about who should pay the costs of mitigation. Iconclude with a note on the carbon emissions pricing scheme passed recently by the Australian Government.First, according to majority of the relevant scientists we face climate change that could well be catastrophic if a business-as-usual scenario is permitted to continue. See references cited here, and in particular the book and website maintained by the economist Frank Ackerman. This is despite a campaign of disinformation by so-called ‘climate sceptics’. In this regard see the important comment by William Nordhaus in the March issue of the NYRB. The energy sector has an obligation to future generations to mitigate climate change due to its emissions. But that won’t happen if we rely on altruism. It requires policies that are cost-effective in meeting the necessary emission reductions. For the vast majority of energy economists this means putting a sufficient price on emissions, whether by means of taxes or through a system of tradable permits. Manifestly, this has not been done in the U.S. where (for example) it is an alarming criterion of electability for Republican Presidential aspirants that they reject the climate science.This being the case, the question of second and nth best policies of necessity arises, including for levels of government below the Federal level that ideally is responsible but in fact is shirking that responsibility. Total reliance on renewables to abate emissions is bad policy because it strays from cost-effectiveness. In turn, cost-effectiveness is important not least because it impacts on maximising political acceptability, which becomes progressively more indispensable as adequate emission targets cut in. Special assistance to high-cost, locally manufactured renewables is even worse and can indeed amount to boondoggle. Nonetheless, despite its reliance on cost-effective correction of market failure, emission pricing is not being implemented. Hence, while still arguing strongly for emission pricing, second best and less cost-effective options must be on the table—at least for those who want to address the problem. And despite arguments elsewhere presented by Nordhaus, the need for international action is urgent, and with the U.S. is a major participant Whether or not cost-effective and rational policies are implemented there will be winners and losers. In this context the question of legislated or regulated compensation to losers arises. For those corporations that have invested in climate change denial (like Exxon) it is hard to be sympathetic. Regulations against the cigarette companies and asbestos have not been too hung up about issues of compensation to those companies. Because of their contemptible actions over many decades there would have been no public ‘sympathy’ for any such compensation. The continuity between the maltreatment of ‘science’ in climate change denial and in tobacco industry has been well documented by Oreskes and Conway in their 2010 book Merchants of Doubt.In other words, the struggle for a respectable climate change policy is about humanitarian values but it cannot be genteel. For the vested interests, and for the so-called ‘sceptics’ and ‘merchants of doubt’ the issue is being treated as analogous to war, where truth is the first casualty. That fact of life must also be recognised by proponents of policy action who accept both the science and their civic obligations. In war there will be losers.In Australia the Federal Government in November 2011 passed legislation on CO2 pricing in transition to a system of internationally tradable permits and directed to markedly reducing emissions by 2020. This was done in conjunction with policies of compensation that have been widely discussed and transparent. Special assistance programs to high-cost renewables are simultaneously being phased out in consequence, in some cases recognising unsupportable levels of subsidy to technologies that are recognised as (for now) distant from cost-effectiveness. These latter (to use Ackerman’s terminology), have been recognised as ‘magic bullets that have failed to reach the target’. However, it would be anticipated that the pricing of CO2 at these levels would significantly encourage technologies such as wind-power and the replacement of coal-fired electricity generation by gas-fired combined cycle gas turbines (CCGTs). http://ailyejk.com [url=http://tpxkvpmp.com]tpxkvpmp[/url] [link=http://nsbcjo.com]nsbcjo[/link]
Write a Review
Costi - OCNWGou8Rk