Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mark Adams who wrote (102126)	5/14/2001 6:15:05 PM
From: yard_man	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

transmission losses are less than 2% of the energy produced -- distribution losses are a little greater -- mostly from the transformer before it gets to your house, assuming the lines aren't over-loaded ... It is not enough to know how much energy something will save -- take the modification to ICEs you mentioned -- can you imagine what it would cost to shift industry to making all ICEs with this new technology (of course a retro-fit is out of the question), there also might be reliability problems that the writer has glossed over, there may be other environmental costs not accounted for ... sure, not all the environmental costs are in the cost of the widget being produced and it is difficult for markets to address such externals -- that's why we have EPA (like 'em or love 'em) ... I think the causal link between recent greenhouse gas production and global warming, and even the extent to which temperatures have really risen vs. historical temperatures, is still debatable -- certainly whether we should embark on a course of action (adopt Kyoto) that will increase our energy production costs by a large percentage in coming years is debatable. Many of these policies simply amount to a tax of some form or another anyway -- CO2 is a natural result of burning coal -- The electric utlities do wield control through the regulatory structure which was put in place to prevent monopolistic misadventure. That's true and what you would expect? -- there are huge sums of money involved. Hopefully, the PUCs retain enough independence to prevent all-out abuse of monopoly power. It depends on the type of people that sit on the boards and the quality of information that they have available to them. Conservation is great, but doesn't increase revenues for electric utilities. No surprise there -- imagine INTC embarking on a program to sell fewer processors (don't give me any of that 'creative destruction' bs -- that's what it is). Without state intervention or considerably higher prices investment in conservation doesn't get done. I'm all for conservation, but must agree with those that contend it is a "marginal contributor" to the overall problem of having enough energy as it simply "puts off" invetment in production. But whether such research should be funded by the government or private industry is a difficult decision. SOme say they need critical mass for the technologies and the funding has to come from somewhere. Others say -- if the market won't support development of the technology -- wait till prices get high enough and it'll get done if it is economic. I think there is a happy medium -- government sponsored research has a role to play. Edison, EPRI are industry funded initiatives -- you have to expect them to serve industry goals -- don't look there for innovation on the conservation front. Our tax dollars support a number of government institutions which are largely devoted to energy research -- don't like the priorities? -- make oyur case to your congressman. You might have a little bit of influence ... Of course, some conservation ideas are not cost-effective and we don't want those subsidized as that would reduce our collective economic welfare, right?