Global Warming is over.

[Fusion]

Your guessing that me thinking 30% is 50% shows an abnormal lack of intelligence on your part.
30% is not 50%, but it's a nice leap and maybe you overheard the possibility of air induction, which should further improve milage and power.

[rwh11385]

Your guessing that me thinking 30% is 50% shows an abnormal lack of intelligence on your part.
30% is not 50%, but it's a nice leap and maybe you overheard the possibility of air induction, which should further improve milage and power.

... you mean using an air tank as energy storage within a hybrid system? Kinda goes against your such educated theory of hybridization is stupid and pointless?

What he was talking about seems kinda like this: http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-31346_7...e-air-vehicle/

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bulletin/gasoline-air-hybrid-technology-promises-100-mpg/11206

French automaker Peugeot Citroen is claiming a major breakthrough in fuel efficiency due to a new vehicle design that replaces car battery with compressed air. The air tanks refill automatically and power a special hydraulic motor that, like an electric hybrid, works in unison with a regular internal combustion engine.

[gwb72tii]

wow, an air powered hydraulic motor

[Q5Quint]

Fluid dynamics still applies to air..... but it seems pneumatic would be the correct term? I thought ups trucks had some actual fluid hydrolic hybrid thing....

wow, deluded as ususal

so you deny Solar economics is skewed by government?

I think it is safe to assume solar is skewed less than oil.

There are incentives for low-income housing, too, but we aren't using that example.

When I was learning about solar in school it was still the backyard diy wiring situation. Today they are all turnkey off-the-shelf products which cut labor costs in half. Add in the fact that we tripled our panel unit output capacity after the silicon shortage in 07-08 and the scale of production sets in. I can buy a giant flat screen tv at wal-marts for $500 now and although subsidies factored into that crazy low price the market solved the rest.




A few people on a farm can feed lots of folks. The mortgage-induced economic slavery we subject ourselves to is... interesting compared to how our grandparents live. Just going to college ended up costing me $300 a month and I am not sure how I can climb out of it if I keep blowing my load on bmws.

[gwb72tii]

please expand why you believe oil to be more skewed?
oil trades futures, and the industry is afforded tax writeoffs as other industries are.
what oil does not get is to have its customers paid by the government to use its products, as solar does. (tax credits)

[rwh11385]

wow, an air powered hydraulic motor

Or you know... you could become informed before you try to criticize ignorantly.

Compressing air is how they store energy, but oil is the working fluid in the motor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/automobiles/compressing-gas-for-a-cheaper-simpler-hybrid.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Like a Prius, the Hybrid Air system recovers energy each time the driver brakes or decelerates. But instead of capturing the kinetic energy of the slowing car with a generator that charges a battery, as in the Prius, the Hybrid Air system uses a reversible hydraulic pump. The pump compresses nitrogen gas in what looks like an oversize scuba tank that also contains hydraulic fluid; the next time the driver presses the accelerator, the compressed gas pushes the hydraulic fluid, in the manner of a syringe, through a gearbox to turn the wheels.

The amount of energy stored in the nitrogen tank is small — equivalent to about five teaspoons of gasoline. While that is only enough to power the car a few hundred yards until the gasoline engine takes over again, when repeated over the course of a day of city driving, those extra teaspoons of energy add up to big improvement in mileage, Peugeot says.

The idea of using so-called hybrid hydraulics to power a car has been around for years. Peugeot prefers to call its system “hybrid air” technology because the energy is stored by compressing nitrogen gas rather than pressurizing hydraulic fluid. In the United States, Chrysler and Ford Motor have each studied the approach, and the Environmental Protection Agency has encouraged the research.

And Q5 is on the ball, which isn't surprising since he is typically informed:

The United Parcel Service has added several dozen hybrid hydraulic delivery vans to its alternative-fuel fleet. Other companies are applying the technology to garbage trucks, which, like U.P.S. vans, are big, make frequent stops and can benefit from recovering energy otherwise wasted in heat generated by the brakes.

[gwb72tii]

get a sense of humor rwh
i was doing hydraulic engineering to get thru business school when you didn't know up from down

[herbivor]

please expand why you believe oil to be more skewed?
oil trades futures, and the industry is afforded tax writeoffs as other industries are.
what oil does not get is to have its customers paid by the government to use its products, as solar does. (tax credits)

Uhh, yeah they sorta do. In fact the government pays us much more to use oil than it does to use solar. It may not be as visible as a tax credit on an IRS form, but when you account for subsidies, whether they be direct (government) or indirect (pollution), oil wins out hands down over any other renewable. If we were to actually get rid of ALL subsidies and credits, when you take into account the cost of pollution, Solar and wind are very competitive. But our free market isn't that free, so the numbers will always be skewed towards oil, at least until it runs out.

[rwh11385]

get a sense of humor rwh
i was doing hydraulic engineering to get thru business school when you didn't know up from down

Yo George - maybe take your own advice

you had no clue it was an [oil driven motor], you just assumed it was [pneumatic]. so you felt smart enough to ridicule [the design] when in fact you don't know what you're talking about. pants down, step on dick.

Uhh, yeah they sorta do. In fact the government pays us much more to use oil than it does to use solar. It may not be as visible as a tax credit on an IRS form, but when you account for subsidies, whether they be direct (government) or indirect (pollution), oil wins out hands down over any other renewable. If we were to actually get rid of ALL subsidies and credits, when you take into account the cost of pollution, Solar and wind are very competitive. But our free market isn't that free, so the numbers will always be skewed towards oil, at least until it runs out.

I don't think George understands the concept of externalities. It's not so much a problem that we don't have a free market as it isn't aligned with negative externalities properly. We certainly are FAR from free market as it is, bordering on social engineering with the level of tax credits... so the RWNJ usually have a broken philosophy supporting oil and farm subsidies while speaking ill of renewable energy ones. But providing incentive for positive enternalities like personal solar panels reducing strain on our electrical grid is a least a step in the right direction. Getting the country on the path towards not having to support the industries commercially like they still do oil will be great for our energy independence and also environment. With the consistent price reduction of these technologies as well as steady price increase of retail electricity, the trend favors greater adoption in the future as is. The US is simply helping until that point and making sure that our country has industrial strength in that field so we remain relevant to the world economy.

I mean, it says a lot when the middle east are hopping on board for renewable energy: http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/inte...lar-farm/11991

"The Stone Age didn't end because we ran out of stones"

[z31maniac]

Here's a question, do oil/farm subsidies really even matter?

Meaning, our tax dollars are used to artificially lower the prices of these two industries, if you removed the subsidies, we would just pay higher prices for those goods.

So we either pay higher prices through taxes, or higher prices without subsidies.

However, I agree the gov't shouldn't be in the game to begin with. My point is strictly what we would pay.

[rwh11385]

Here's a question, do oil/farm subsidies really even matter?

Meaning, our tax dollars are used to artificially lower the prices of these two industries, if you removed the subsidies, we would just pay higher prices for those goods.

So we either pay higher prices through taxes, or higher prices without subsidies.

However, I agree the gov't shouldn't be in the game to begin with. My point is strictly what we would pay.

Both are traded globally, and we are only an export leader in one of them. We don't really have the influence to change oil price so Exxon might make less profit but shouldn't greatly affect our consumers. If negative externalities were added to industries, coal would pretty much be dead while natural gas would be good, while oil/gas to us might be more expensive as renewables would be made more cost effective by including societal cost. Then again, we would pay less total because the market would reflect the reality of costs of energy - not simply extraction and unit price, but after effects too. (Like they did with Ozone depletion and CFCs or Acid rain and SO2)

Ag might change some of their strategies but largely the mega farmers wouldn't have as much profit that is handed to them from US taxpayers. The modern rare (per acreage) small family farm should be helped still... but why are we reverse robin hooding for the huge guys?


You want to keep the little guys in farming - even if most their income comes from non-farm sources.

But look at the direct payments:

http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/farm-income-and-wealth-statistics.aspx#27428

http://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2013-march/farm-income-forecast-to-remain-high-in-2013.aspx#.UU3ArhyfgfU

Farm Income Forecast To Remain High in 2013

The two main measures of farm sector income are currently expected to be close to record highs in 2013. Net farm income is forecast to be $128.2 billion, which would be nearly 14 percent higher than its 2012 forecast. Adjusting for inflation, this would be the highest net farm income since 1973.

The problem is, even as the GOP fight spending, they protect the industries they care about as hypocrites while attacking industries they don't care for or are in competition with. (renewables vs. fossil fuels; Big Ag and Food vs. healthcare)

Food is obviously a HUGE concern for society and its general welfare... so the government should ensure we have food security... but people are actively attacking food stamps while we have a broken system that rewards the farms who need help the least because of lobbying?

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/03/overhauling-the-farm-bill-the-real-beneficiaries-of-subsidies/254422/

Overhauling the Farm Bill: The Real Beneficiaries of Subsidies

So it's understandable that true family farmers feel vilified by attacks on farm subsidies. But they have not been good at making their own case to the public, or Congress. Rather, they have handed over their representation to agribusiness lobbies, who use the image of family farmers to fight chiefly for the interests of commercial mega-farms.

One problem is the lack of practical limits on how much a single farming operation can receive in subsidies. Thanks to numerous legal loopholes, lax enforcement, and loose definitions of what it means to be actively engaged in farming, essentially no caps currently exist. Farmers and landowners creatively form complex family partnerships with associated limited liability companies that find new ways to get on the subsidy gravy train. Lawyers and accountants exploit these loopholes, offering "payments limitations planning" services that stretch the legal definitions of "actively engaged in farming."

http://reason.com/archives/2013/03/12/farm-subsidies-must-die

Farm Subsidies Must Die
How agriculture subsidies waste money, distort the economy, and steal from the poor to give to the rich.

since 1995, just 10 percent of subsidized farms—the largest and wealthiest operations—have raked in 74 percent of all subsidy payments.

The good news is that our fiscal problems have made these subsidies politically unsustainable. As a result, the farm bill currently under consideration by Congress is set to terminate them. But attempts to wean farmers from the federal teat have proved disastrous in the past.

Take the $4.1 billion the federal government spent on direct payments in 2011. Created in 1996 as a way to get farmers off their addiction to price guarantee programs, these supposedly temporary direct payments are still around. In 2013, a new farm bill, even with the elimination of direct payments, would be a similarly hollow victory. Lawmakers would compensate farmers by expanding another unjustifiable farm subsidy program: crop insurance.

Like most businesses, farms buy insurance policies to protect from potential losses, such as poor yields or declining prices. Unlike most businesses, they can count on the government to pay about two thirds of the premiums, at a cost of $7 billion annually. The proposed “shallow-loss program” would send money to farmers in the event of small drops of revenue that are not typically covered by crop insurance.

Direct payments and crop insurance are not the only farm programs in need of termination. Price support programs such as marketing loans are a serious waste of taxpayer money, as are the conservation subsidies that pay farmers not to farm on their land. So are export subsidies, which aid farmers in foreign sales, and countercyclical payments, which compensate for drops in crops’ market prices.

In addition to the direct cost to taxpayers, these subsidies cause enormous economic distortions. Consider the domestic sugar industry. The USDA protects its producers against foreign competitors by imposing U.S. import quotas, and against low prices with a no-recourse loan program that serves as an effective price floor. As a result, the University of Michigan economist Mark Perry reports, Americans have had to pay an average of twice the world price of sugar since 1982.

That’s just one of many government interventions that have hurt the poorest Americans by increasing the price of food. The food stamp program—an $80 billion initiative designed to help poor Americans offset the high price of buying food—is embedded in the very farm bill that keeps those prices so high.

People might not have had to look for kosher or mexican Coca Cola if we didn't make sugar twice as expensive. [I'm not an advocate of HFCS is evil, but think that kind of market distortion isn't in our society's interest]

“We’ve drastically increased barriers to entry through subsidy programs, at huge social and economic costs. If I’m a 30-year-old farmer, as my sons-in-law are, I should mightily resent the fact that the landowner whose land I need receives government subsidies while I’m forced to compete against those subsidies to secure enough land to have a viable farm business.”

I think ensuring our agricultural production and food is important, as much as our industrial and military strength... but that doesn't mean we should protect the skewed and broken system that is the result of massive lobbying instead of logic. I know people with friends in Ag and have more money than they know what to do with. They obviously have their interests in keeping the subsidies coming, largely because the market would have a hand in regulating prices still so their profit would lose, not necessarily the consumer. Major Ag companies hire a lot of people and help support our food production and also have a vested interest in keeping the money flowing, but they should also care about fairness and reason with their tax dollars. We should work towards something that makes sense and is more efficient (like farms getting private crop insurance on their own if it's over $XX,XXX level of revenues) - not a complete dismantling of the Farm Bill. I have a lot of friends who may jump and shout at such a concept, but that's the reality of it - we have people who want to protect their interests while also criticizing every other spending point besides their own. The sustainable budget of the United States will take practical modification of a lot of different things and how it deals with industries... but hopefully we can more towards more private management and influence rather than bureaucracy.

p.s. I'm not against mega farmers, CAFOs, or the industrial nature of Ag. I like my commodity chicken and don't buy organic. However, I don't think that these huge businesses need much help from the American taxpayers and believe that they'll take a hit, not us on prices.

[rwh11385]

Additionally Buddy, if you take the logic (which was valid and reasonable) from your question and apply it to renewable energy then you could ask if the subsidizes end up saving consumers money on energy then isn't it better that way? It's not fair to have one way be a wash net-net and then not apply the same to the other. If you want to protect the nation's leadership, economy, and well-being then investing in renewables would be the way to go - with action now paying off dividends for the coming generations, and saving money then as well.

The systems provide power from a free and unlimited resource - how better can that be for sustainable low-cost energy? People should be upset that some politicians want to limit that. The Costco and Walmart solar panels help keep your food cold and cheaper. Solar panels (as well as natural gas) help reduce manufacturing costs here, which in turn helps our industries and jobs, as well as quality in-shored products.


I also forgot to mention that I strongly support some kind of subsidy or credit towards anaerobic digesters on livestock operations. It would help their costs by retaining more nutrients while cutting down on GHGs from lagoons as well as reducing the chances of spills or those cesspools running all over in a flood. And smell... major reduction in smell pollution to their neighbors.

[z31maniac]

I completely agree.

Unfortunately the Proletariat would bitch about the price of gas, because it would be more apparent where their money is actually going.

[rwh11385]

Our house that was built in 1941 is getting renovated due to a fire. We are installing a highly sophisticated HVAC system and the best insulation. it costs twice as much as standard systems, but uses about half the energy. Our 1941 house will be about 30% more efficient than a new Energy star rated house.

Yo, have you seen this? http://www.gizmag.com/net-zero-active-house/26769/

Active House, which uses natural lighting and ventilation to reduce its energy consumption while still blending in with the architecture of the surrounding neighborhood.

Seems right up your alley.

[z31maniac]

That's awesome! We've decided against buying a new/bigger home. Going to refinance this one to a 10 year. Thermal Windows, more insulation, and eventually more efficient HVAC/water heater and solar panels.