Re: AMD's well may be running dry

davidc@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Mar 17, 1:25 pm, Bill Todd <billt...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
dav...@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Supply and Demand.

Horse***: in cases like this, supply and demand *is* abuse. The
free market does a lousy job of anything but very-short-term
optimization -
it leaves the long term (which means our children - and even
ourselves
if we're not that old) to take care of itself.

And in the current 'me-me-me!' cultural climate appealing to the
'enlightened self-interest' of individuals to fix that problem is
ludicrous.

That leaves it up to governments - hardly an ideal candidate for
saving
our asses, but better than none at all.

So you want to leave it up to the government to artificially regulate/
legislate supply and demand? Do you have any evidence that such
actions actually work? I can point to many instances where it has
demonstrably not worked, take for example the War on Drugs? Maybe
Prohibition is a better example?


You forgot rent control.

A tax will only create a new agency, which will not reduce usage of
fossil fuels because now that validity of that agency depends upon
using that fossil fuel. Government agencies often act in their own
self interest, not always in the interests you think they do. Yes,
I'm a cynic, but when was the last time you saw a government agency
rendered obsolete? They only RECENTLY abolished the tax to support
the Spanish-American War.

And some of the "cures" I'm not sure are better than the "disease".
Let's all switch to flouresent lights. Now will have lots of mercury
and other toxic items from the ballasts filling out landfills rather
than glass/alumimum/copper/tungsten. Not sure that's what I want
leaching into my water supplies... We're all in a tizzy about global
warming, and jumping on a "solution" that may not be as good as we
think long term. Also what about the manufacturing costs of those
CFL's? Is the CO2 we save lighting our house being consumed producing
the bulbs? Who's done that analysis?


I previously worked at a company that made power generation systems.
Amongst those in the portfolio were wind, diesel-wind combos and bio-mass
power/heat systems.

I have not done recent research, but in the 90s, wind and bio-mass
technologies were neither economic in an absolute or relative sense. In the
case of wind, at that time it was not CO2 positive either (if indeed it was
even energy positive). Only viia government subsidy could such technologies
survive. The technologies have and are continually improving.

With bio-mass, the process is almost economic because the producers of the
recyclable bio mass (pig *** or whatever) will actually pay to have it
removed. Additionally, certain additives are a waste product of other
industrial proceesses, which can be provided "free" to the generation
system. Either way, the bio-mass power/heat market is very local and
locality specific, requiring large amounts of bio mass being locally
available.

Dr Dweeb.

be made marketable. For instance, insulation and such is a godo
business around here in Texas (it get's a little hot). Why?
Because is saves you money. Yeah, it has the nice side effect of
"saving the planet", but that's not why most people do it - it's
because it make economic sense.

Which just highlights the nature of the problem: most people only
buy
as much insulation in hot or cold climates as 'makes economic sense'
*at the moment* - rather than buying considerably more in order to
reduce energy use.

But since prices are up, the "at them moment" is having a substantial
impact. Double-paned windows, styro insulation, thicker attic
insulation, higher SEER efficiency A/C units or heat pumps, on-demand
water heaeters, and more. I hear ads about that stuff daily. Didn't
used to.

And the sad part is that the economic optimum in this case has a
*very* broad minimum: for literally a few percent higher net outlay
(even
after amortizing the up-front costs over time - and I'm talking
about a
few percent of the net insulating-plus-heating/cooling costs over
time,
not the entire house cost) you can at least halve your house's
heating/cooling load. And that's based on the figures I worked
through 15 years ago when building our own house and fossil fuel
prices were considerably lower than they are today.

But it's not today, is it? And the market is seeing a distinct change
in that respect and higher efficiency is being widely marketted as a
"good thing".

I tell you, when I can replace my shingles on my house with
effective solar-cell's that let me house generate it's own power
for the A/C during the day, I'm all for it.

You live in Texas, so you might well be able to do that today - if
your house were properly insulated (design to take advantage of
shade is also
a major win). You could also do it today if you were paying for the
actual long-term value of the energy you use rather than leaving it
up
to the next generation to pay for the difference (plus their own
needs).

The only problems with that is solar cells aren't currently efficient
enough, expensive, and fragile (we have hail, too). But creative
shading (i.e. trees) and other things do help as well.


.