 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
I'm reading the above and wondering. How can I be sooooooo stupid?
Once upon a time I respected the message delivered by Vin Supreynoqicz.
I can go back and try to find what that earlier message contained or I can simply work with the current message.
Example:
What evidence do they offer – other than carefully crafted rhetoric, "assuming" we can reduce electrical demand through "greater efficiency" – that these technologies can do the job in a short time horizon without massive unforeseen environmental costs, without tripling our electric bills either directly or through tax subsidies? And that’s before we allow for delays caused by the inevitable obstructive lawsuits from these same technological Kervorkians or their "Green" first cousins, complaining that windmill farms and their new transmission lines will endanger birds and bugs, about the toxic dangers of vast new battery farms ...
The information needed to make an intelligent investment include:
A. The cost of the initial investment
B. The rate of production
C. The rate of income due to sales of production
D. The cost of production
E. Net income after expenses
A coal plant investment that is subsidized is no different than a solar plant investment that is subsidized. Costs are reduced by fraud or force.
One of the costs of any investment is the cost associated with false advertisement, misrepresentation, and fraud initiated by criminal competitors seeking to corner the market.
Example:
"We were kind of surprised, boss, but as we pencil it out, we can actually generate enough power to meet all our customers’ anticipated needs for the next 30 years if we go with this solar and wind package, and at a savings of 25 percent," your accountants inform you. "The customers have been whining about $200 electric bills; this would allow us to reduce those bills by 25 percent. Or, in you prefer, we could reduce their bills by 20 percent, and pocket the other 5 percent."
You’d have to be nuts not to go with that plan.
So why do our energy companies continue to plan and build coal-fired plants?
Because the above scenario is bogus. It’s a lie. Replacing the bulk of our power generation with solar and wind and other "green" technologies may well come to pass in another century (and we’ve got enough coal to last three centuries while we get it right, so what’s the rush?) But if they could do the job for less, right now, there’d be private entrepreneurs racing to get rich by building such facilities behind every mesquite tree. And there aren’t.
That is an example of a Straw-Man argument where a bogus man of straw is constructed in a manner that creates a weak enemy to be defeated easily by the creator of the weak opponent.
This is like a self-made circle jerk between the creator and the imaginary friend.
If a coal burning electric power generating business is seeking to expand (exploit) a new market and a Solar and Wind electric generating business is seeking customers in the same location, then, the above type of false propaganda will injure the potential to sell Solar and Wind electric generating products.
This will occur even if the Solar and Wind electric generating businesses merely want to sell individual units to individual people within the same location as the Coal Burning Electric Power Generation Limited Liability Corporate State and Federal Stock Trading licensed Entity is currently paying off politicians to gain license to exploit the local citizenry.
The question of who owns The Grid becomes a legal matter to be licensed or awarded by some sanctioning body or co-conspirators or elected representatives and words fail to accurately communcate which is which like a self-fulfilling Witch hunt or perpetuatin circle jerk.
If an individual ends up with a choice between generating individual electric current at self-sustaining rates for their own consumption and sales to each neighbor off the grid (illegally) or not at all (due to the fraudulent enforcement of crime disguised as law governing the production and sale of electricity), then, the individual has to calculate the cost of operating an electric power generating business illegally (because the competition has invested in the creation and maintenance of fraudulent legal entities that are actually nothing more than organized crime enforcing their monopoly control over every power threatening their power).
The cost/benefit analysis comparison between making electriicty with coal or making electricity with light energy (including wind energy) is a analysis that can be done with and without the costs associated with fighting city hall and the legal criminals jerking each other off there.
When someone actually produced the accurate data required to make an accurate analysis either way, then, that will arm someone with the required informaiton to make an intelligent choice.
Meanwhile the following continues:
This comes very close to choosing a course of action based on late-night radio conspiracy theories: "The Detroit-Petroleum Combine has an internal combustion engine that’ll run indefinitely on water, see. They bought up the patent and they’ve been keeping it a secret because if it ever got out it would blow the lid off their whole operation. Nicola Tesla came up with a way to generate unlimited power and transmit it via radio waves with no environmental costs. He proved it when he caused that big blast at Tunguska in Siberia in 1908. So the big power companies had him killed and stole his notes and hid the whole thing away, see, because if it ever got out ..."
I do not yet have one of these:
http://www.savefuel.ca/
When I can pull myself out of my current jam (health related) I intend to get one and report back on the cost/benefit analysis.
Since the picture is worth a thousand words. I'll leave this jerk off for another day and I'll send Vin another challenge via-e-mail.
I can cut and paste the following:
Vin,
Stop jerking please.
I can link this site.