Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Non-Running Politics

Page 2,736 of 6,318

1 2,735 2,736 2,737 6,318

5 years ago 03/29/2019 4:31pm EDT

re: Fat hurts

Fat hurts wrote:
No free lunch wrote:
zero-cost electricity?
i want some of what you're smokin'
You can get zero-cost electricity today if you want it. Just put solar panels on your roof and add three or four Tesla power walls. Then you can disconnect from the grid and get all your power for free.
There is a large up front cost. It's going to be around $50,000. But depending on where you live, the system will pay for itself in less than 15 years. After that, you get another 15 years of free electricity.
So if we improve the technology, we can extend the same principle to the entire power grid. There is still a big upfront cost, but eventually, the system pays for itself and we enjoy electricity that is essentially free from then on.
And with improvements in technology and infrastructure, the payback period gets shorter.

FatHurts - What size house do you have? If you live in a neighborhood, was the the HOA okay with the panels? And was that $50,000 for install and panels or for all panels? And now you pay $0 for power?

5 years ago 03/29/2019 4:34pm EDT

re: Fat hurts

Fat hurts wrote:
No free lunch wrote:
If the Green New Deal passed today, how long before everyone can get free electricity?
It would probably take 15 to 20 years to completely switch to free energy. Rates would start to go down sooner than that.
The positive economic effects would start immediately as more and more people get jobs in the clean energy sector.

But wouldn't there be decreasing clean energy jobs as more people use clean energy? In 15-20 years there would be no clean energy jobs.

5 years ago 03/29/2019 4:41pm EDT

re: Fat hurts

Fat hurts wrote:
No free lunch wrote:
If the Green New Deal passed today, how long before everyone can get free electricity?
It would probably take 15 to 20 years to completely switch to free energy. Rates would start to go down sooner than that.
The positive economic effects would start immediately as more and more people get jobs in the clean energy sector.

Yup Yup. Nothing quite like free energy provided courtesy of an industry providing LOTS of high paying jobs! ;-)

5 years ago 03/29/2019 5:53pm EDT

re: Yup Purzz

The $3 million plus in free energy we taxpayers give every weekend trump sits around Palm Beach ?.

5 years ago 03/29/2019 7:00pm EDT

re: Not an econ majer

Not an econ majer wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
It would probably take 15 to 20 years to completely switch to free energy. Rates would start to go down sooner than that.
The positive economic effects would start immediately as more and more people get jobs in the clean energy sector.
But wouldn't there be decreasing clean energy jobs as more people use clean energy? In 15-20 years there would be no clean energy jobs.

There eventually wouldn't be as many clean energy jobs. But lots of new jobs would be created. If our electricity was far cheaper than other countries then new jobs would come here from overseas.

Also, with cheaper energy, the cost of goods and services gets cheaper -- waaay cheaper. Transportation costs get really low. Housing costs get really low. Food costs get really low.

This would drive people to work fewer hours or retire earlier. In turn, that would free up more jobs for those who want them.

5 years ago 03/29/2019 7:53pm EDT

re: Fat hurts

Fat hurts wrote:
Your math is wrong. Those hundreds of billions per year is just in the US. Worldwide, the losses are in the trillions per year. And beyond the monetary losses, billions of people will die.

My math is right. In 2100, the global GDP will be on the order of 370 to 3,900 trillion per year, assuming 2 to 5 percent annual growth. I don't think any knowledgable person would challenge that broad assumption. Therefore, a few trillion is a small amount. Similarly the US GDP will be on the order of 100-200 trillion per year, so hundreds of billions is less than 1% after 100 years. That's the equivalent of saying the US GDP will average 2.99% growth instead of 3.00%.

Even assuming 10% GDP loss, which was a worse-case hypothetical (8C temperature rise which is a lot more than they actually predict), that's still only the difference between 2.9% and 3.0% per year.

Fat hurts wrote:
Whether or not the Green New Deal will work is not something you can know because it hasn't been defined yet.

Sure I can't argue against something that doesn't exist... let me know when it does

Fat hurts wrote:
Now to your comments about solar. I'm actually talking about other renewables as well. And if you think we can't power the nation on renewables then you are dead wrong.
Your example of Seattle is way off base. Washington state gets 2/3 of its power from hydro. And, there is abundant wind, so that source is growing fast. Washington will be relatively easy to wean off of fossil fuel because the already don't use that much of it.

You're moving the goalposts. Renewable energy isn't "free" no matter how many times you repeat it. It costs money like any other energy source. To the extent that it could eventually be cheaper, people will switch to it anyway so there's no need for the Green New Deal.

5 years ago 03/29/2019 8:27pm EDT

re: Conspiracy Loon

Conspiracy Loon wrote:
L L wrote:
Barr will send a "properly redacted" Mueller Report by mid-April.
Does any trust this?
Wouldn't it be nice if the Independent Council reported to an independent entity to review the findings instead by a person appointed by the person being investigated?
And then we'd need an independent entity to review the independent entity.

You can’t have the president have any part of the investigation into himself.

Trump hired Barr.

Barr should not be the one to head this investigation and deliver any report on it.

5 years ago 03/29/2019 9:21pm EDT

re: Hardloper

Hardloper wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
Now to your comments about solar. I'm actually talking about other renewables as well. And if you think we can't power the nation on renewables then you are dead wrong.
Your example of Seattle is way off base. Washington state gets 2/3 of its power from hydro. And, there is abundant wind, so that source is growing fast. Washington will be relatively easy to wean off of fossil fuel because the already don't use that much of it.
You're moving the goalposts. Renewable energy isn't "free" no matter how many times you repeat it. It costs money like any other energy source. To the extent that it could eventually be cheaper, people will switch to it anyway so there's no need for the Green New Deal.

It is "free" in the sense that the infrastructure pays for itself. Once that happens, there is a tiny price for maintenance, but power becomes essentially "free". You don't have to pay for the sun to shine or the wind to blow.

With fossil fuels, you pay over and over and over. It never stops.

We do need a Green New Deal because it won't happen on its own. The fossil fuel industry is too entrenched for the market to make the switch by itself. To make the switch, it will take some government help:

* We need to modernize the grid, which will require government intervention.

* We need government sponsored R&D, especially in grid level storage.

* We need funding to keep our aging nuclear plants running during the transition.

* We need to adjust EV subsidies to aid the transition to electric transport.

* We need to get rid of subsidies for fossil fuels.

* We need a carbon tax because polluters should pay for the junk they spew into the air.

What I've described is not terribly expensive. But it will work. And it's a LOT cheaper than climate change. Plus it will save billions of lives and grow our economy.

5 years ago 03/29/2019 9:28pm EDT

re: Fat hurts

Fat hurts wrote:
Hardloper wrote:
You're moving the goalposts. Renewable energy isn't "free" no matter how many times you repeat it. It costs money like any other energy source. To the extent that it could eventually be cheaper, people will switch to it anyway so there's no need for the Green New Deal.
It is "free" in the sense that the infrastructure pays for itself. Once that happens, there is a tiny price for maintenance, but power becomes essentially "free". You don't have to pay for the sun to shine or the wind to blow.
With fossil fuels, you pay over and over and over. It never stops.
We do need a Green New Deal because it won't happen on its own. The fossil fuel industry is too entrenched for the market to make the switch by itself. To make the switch, it will take some government help:
* We need to modernize the grid, which will require government intervention.
* We need government sponsored R&D, especially in grid level storage.
* We need funding to keep our aging nuclear plants running during the transition.
* We need to adjust EV subsidies to aid the transition to electric transport.
* We need to get rid of subsidies for fossil fuels.
* We need a carbon tax because polluters should pay for the junk they spew into the air.
What I've described is not terribly expensive. But it will work. And it's a LOT cheaper than climate change. Plus it will save billions of lives and grow our economy.

You cannot explain anything to hardloper. He know everything already. That is possible only because he forces everything he hears and reads into hi heavily filtered biases.

5 years ago 03/30/2019 5:27am EDT

re: Fat hurts

Fat hurts wrote:
Hardloper wrote:
You're moving the goalposts. Renewable energy isn't "free" no matter how many times you repeat it. It costs money like any other energy source. To the extent that it could eventually be cheaper, people will switch to it anyway so there's no need for the Green New Deal.
It is "free" in the sense that the infrastructure pays for itself. Once that happens, there is a tiny price for maintenance, but power becomes essentially "free". You don't have to pay for the sun to shine or the wind to blow.
With fossil fuels, you pay over and over and over. It never stops.
We do need a Green New Deal because it won't happen on its own. The fossil fuel industry is too entrenched for the market to make the switch by itself. To make the switch, it will take some government help:
* We need to modernize the grid, which will require government intervention.
* We need government sponsored R&D, especially in grid level storage.
* We need funding to keep our aging nuclear plants running during the transition.
* We need to adjust EV subsidies to aid the transition to electric transport.
* We need to get rid of subsidies for fossil fuels.
* We need a carbon tax because polluters should pay for the junk they spew into the air.
What I've described is not terribly expensive. But it will work. And it's a LOT cheaper than climate change. Plus it will save billions of lives and grow our economy.

That doesn’t sound free. That sounds expensive. How are we paying for this?

And I don’t understand how there are going to be millions of high paying jobs in an industry where the product/Service is free. Where is the money coming from to pay these people?

5 years ago 03/30/2019 6:28am EDT

re: Paul Jr.

Paul Jr. wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
You can get zero-cost electricity today if you want it. Just put solar panels on your roof and add three or four Tesla power walls. Then you can disconnect from the grid and get all your power for free.
There is a large up front cost. It's going to be around $50,000. But depending on where you live, the system will pay for itself in less than 15 years. After that, you get another 15 years of free electricity.
So if we improve the technology, we can extend the same principle to the entire power grid. There is still a big upfront cost, but eventually, the system pays for itself and we enjoy electricity that is essentially free from then on.
And with improvements in technology and infrastructure, the payback period gets shorter.
FatHurts - What size house do you have? If you live in a neighborhood, was the the HOA okay with the panels? And was that $50,000 for install and panels or for all panels? And now you pay $0 for power?

bump

5 years ago 03/30/2019 6:39am EDT

re: Just a caveman

Just a caveman wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
It is "free" in the sense that the infrastructure pays for itself. Once that happens, there is a tiny price for maintenance, but power becomes essentially "free". You don't have to pay for the sun to shine or the wind to blow.
With fossil fuels, you pay over and over and over. It never stops.
We do need a Green New Deal because it won't happen on its own. The fossil fuel industry is too entrenched for the market to make the switch by itself. To make the switch, it will take some government help:
* We need to modernize the grid, which will require government intervention.
* We need government sponsored R&D, especially in grid level storage.
* We need funding to keep our aging nuclear plants running during the transition.
* We need to adjust EV subsidies to aid the transition to electric transport.
* We need to get rid of subsidies for fossil fuels.
* We need a carbon tax because polluters should pay for the junk they spew into the air.
What I've described is not terribly expensive. But it will work. And it's a LOT cheaper than climate change. Plus it will save billions of lives and grow our economy.
That doesn’t sound free. That sounds expensive. How are we paying for this?
And I don’t understand how there are going to be millions of high paying jobs in an industry where the product/Service is free. Where is the money coming from to pay these people?

Money to build out the infrastructure comes from getting rid of fossil fuel subsidies and a carbon tax.

Electricity would eventually be free to ordinary rate payers. There are any number of ways you could fund the cost of system maintenance. When you no longer need to buy fossil fuels to feed the system, then the system gets really, really cheap to operate.

5 years ago 03/30/2019 6:48am EDT

re: Paul Jr.

Paul Jr. wrote:
Paul Jr. wrote:
FatHurts - What size house do you have? If you live in a neighborhood, was the the HOA okay with the panels? And was that $50,000 for install and panels or for all panels? And now you pay $0 for power?
bump

I don't have that kind of system yet. I've been looking into it. I don't have an HOA.

Living "off the grid" is becoming more and more popular as the cost of solar has gone down. And yes, those who live off the grid pay $0 for their power. There is even a US congressman from Kentucky that has a system like that. And surprise, he's a Republican.

5 years ago 03/30/2019 7:32am EDT

re: Fat hurts

The free energy we have now is the Russians lecturing us on democracy on this MB. They have lots of filthy coal & oil to sell us, so we can be slaves just like them.

5 years ago 03/30/2019 7:49am EDT

re: Fat hurts

Fat hurts wrote:
It is "free" in the sense that the infrastructure pays for itself. Once that happens, there is a tiny price for maintenance, but power becomes essentially "free". You don't have to pay for the sun to shine or the wind to blow.

This seems confused.

The fuel is free, the infrastructure is not. It requires a large capital investment at the outset. The maintenance costs for wind and solar infrastructure are higher than fossil fuel infrastructure maintenance. This is balanced by the fuel cost of fossil fuel power generation to the point that there are numerous examples of industrial scale solar and wind power generation with lower net cost than any fossil fuel plant.

There is a strong purely economic argument to promote a renewable infrastructure build out, but it isn't free. Moreover, because of the capital investment barrier there is a strong argument for government to incentivize this build out.

5 years ago 03/30/2019 8:00am EDT

re: Citizen Runner

Citizen Runner wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
It is "free" in the sense that the infrastructure pays for itself. Once that happens, there is a tiny price for maintenance, but power becomes essentially "free". You don't have to pay for the sun to shine or the wind to blow.
This seems confused.
The fuel is free, the infrastructure is not. It requires a large capital investment at the outset. The maintenance costs for wind and solar infrastructure are higher than fossil fuel infrastructure maintenance. This is balanced by the fuel cost of fossil fuel power generation to the point that there are numerous examples of industrial scale solar and wind power generation with lower net cost than any fossil fuel plant.
There is a strong purely economic argument to promote a renewable infrastructure build out, but it isn't free. Moreover, because of the capital investment barrier there is a strong argument for government to incentivize this build out.

Correct, except for the part about maintenance on solar. I don't think there is any way that maintenance on a solar panel is more expensive than maintenance on fossil fuel turbines.

My point is that after the initial build out, the cost of electricity would be essentially free to ordinary rate payers. I am assuming continued advancement in solar, wind, and storage technology. All of those keep getting cheaper and more durable. So the cost of generating power and the cost of maintenance will keep going down.

5 years ago 03/30/2019 9:03am EDT

re: Fat hurts

Fat hurts wrote:
Paul Jr. wrote:
bump
I don't have that kind of system yet. I've been looking into it. I don't have an HOA.
Living "off the grid" is becoming more and more popular as the cost of solar has gone down. And yes, those who live off the grid pay $0 for their power. There is even a US congressman from Kentucky that has a system like that. And surprise, he's a Republican.

lol

Basically, it is so important that everybody should do it but you. What about the billions of dead people?

5 years ago 03/30/2019 9:03am EDT

re: Fat hurts

5 years ago 03/30/2019 9:15am EDT

re: Fat hurts

Fat hurts wrote:
Citizen Runner wrote:
This seems confused.
The fuel is free, the infrastructure is not. It requires a large capital investment at the outset. The maintenance costs for wind and solar infrastructure are higher than fossil fuel infrastructure maintenance. This is balanced by the fuel cost of fossil fuel power generation to the point that there are numerous examples of industrial scale solar and wind power generation with lower net cost than any fossil fuel plant.
There is a strong purely economic argument to promote a renewable infrastructure build out, but it isn't free. Moreover, because of the capital investment barrier there is a strong argument for government to incentivize this build out.
Correct, except for the part about maintenance on solar. I don't think there is any way that maintenance on a solar panel is more expensive than maintenance on fossil fuel turbines.
My point is that after the initial build out, the cost of electricity would be essentially free to ordinary rate payers. I am assuming continued advancement in solar, wind, and storage technology. All of those keep getting cheaper and more durable. So the cost of generating power and the cost of maintenance will keep going down.

This doesn't sound free at all.

Infact, it sounds very expensive.

5 years ago 03/30/2019 9:33am EDT

re: globaire

Just so no one has lost sight...

Mueller is coming.

The clown is done.

The Orange One WILL go to prison.

Page 2,736 of 6,318

1 2,735 2,736 2,737 6,318

Next Last

Reply Replying to

Username

Password

Leave the password field blank to post anonymously.

Post Preview

By posting you acknowledge that you have read and abide by our Terms and Conditions.

Remember me on this device.

Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Of General Interest

This thread has already been deleted.

You have been subscribed.

Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Jump To A Page

Follow jesseriley

Block jesseriley

Follow Fat hurts

Block Fat hurts

Follow Hardloper

Block Hardloper

Follow L L

Block L L

Follow Fat hurts

Block Fat hurts

Follow Fat hurts

Block Fat hurts

Follow Fat hurts

Block Fat hurts

Follow jesseriley

Block jesseriley

Follow Citizen Runner

Block Citizen Runner

Follow Fat hurts

Block Fat hurts

Follow Flagpole

Block Flagpole

Jump To A Page

Of General Interest

This thread has already been deleted.

Reply Replying to

You have been subscribed.