If Apple had looked into their options and found that it made business sense to invest in solar WITHOUT the use of State of California tax rebates and incentives, I'd be much happier with this project.
All forms of energy have subsidies of some sort in them. How come you never felt unhappy before, when just fossil fuels were being used?
I probably don't need to tell you, but subsidies distort markets and lead to favoritism and corruption.
When it comes to energy, pray tell when it wasn't a distorted market. In almost all historic energy markets, energy was mined, cut, or in the case of whale oil, killed, and certainly theft was a standard modus. There were always costs that would be passed on to future generations, not to mention current generations.
Renewables have subsidies certainly, and life cycle costs, but far less than fossil fuels and nuclear energy have had and will continue to accumulate over the years.
Irrespective of the finances of this, I strongly support this project for two reason- first, it displaces carbon emissions. Second, it lets environmentalists see solar power for what it will need to become if it is to power our future- multinational companies paving over thousands of acres at a time because unfortunately, putting up a 10 square foot panel on the roof just doesn't cut it. Perhaps over time projects like this will help environmentalists reconsider their stance on nuclear, the only carbon free energy source with little to no environmental impact.
Engineer-types love nuclear because it's technically sophisticated and, if properly implemented, very appealing from a cost-benefit standpoint. But engineering types don't appreciate the importance of politics and economics in making nuclear work -- they don't know how to fit those variables into their equations, and so they just ignore those variables.
I am aware of only one country in the world that has really made nuclear power work safely, efficiently, and with strong public support. That country is France. I think the reason it works well in France is strong public support for science and for government institutions (and government institutions that actually seem to work pretty well). Unfortunately, that description does not currently apply to the United States. In the US, we have a major political party that is constantly working to undermine the effectiveness and authority of the federal government. Without effective government, we cannot have nuclear power.
Engineer-types love nuclear because it's technically sophisticated and, if properly implemented, very appealing from a cost-benefit standpoint. But engineering types don't appreciate the importance of politics and economics in making nuclear work -- they don't know how to fit those variables into their equations, and so they just ignore those variables.
I am aware of only one country in the world that has really made nuclear power work safely, efficiently, and with strong public support. That country is France. I think the reason it works well in France is strong public support for science and for government institutions (and government institutions that actually seem to work pretty well). Unfortunately, that description does not currently apply to the United States. In the US, we have a major political party that is constantly working to undermine the effectiveness and authority of the federal government. Without effective government, we cannot have nuclear power.
As an engineer, I am not pro-nuclear by any stretch, but I don't go out of my way to hamper it either. There's enough history behind Nuclear energy in the U.S. to create a continuing image of poor management, and I would probably be much more amenable, if for example, the U.S. Navy was running them, and had the budget to continue R&D and safe operation.
But that's not the case.
Perhaps its time as well for the Nuclear Industry to embrace the fact of Climate Change, and throw Coal under the bus. I would actually like to see that occur, but as many if not most of the Utilities have Coal fired operations, this will never happen.
As an engineer, I am not pro-nuclear by any stretch, but I don't go out of my way to hamper it either. There's enough history behind Nuclear energy in the U.S. to create a continuing image of poor management, and I would probably be much more amenable, if for example, the U.S. Navy was running them, and had the budget to continue R&D and safe operation.
But that's not the case.
Perhaps its time as well for the Nuclear Industry to embrace the fact of Climate Change, and throw Coal under the bus. I would actually like to see that occur, but as many if not most of the Utilities have Coal fired operations, this will never happen.
Good luck getting the biggest polluters to throw coal under the bus (metaphorically speaking).
Comments
If Apple had looked into their options and found that it made business sense to invest in solar WITHOUT the use of State of California tax rebates and incentives, I'd be much happier with this project.
All forms of energy have subsidies of some sort in them. How come you never felt unhappy before, when just fossil fuels were being used?
All forms of energy have subsidies of some sort in them. How come you never felt unhappy before, when just fossil fuels were being used?
I'm unhappy about all subsidies.
I'm unhappy about all subsidies.
almost everything is subsidized:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies#United_States
As a percentage renewables get more, but we even subsidize coal.
I probably don't need to tell you, but subsidies distort markets and lead to favoritism and corruption.
I probably don't need to tell you, but subsidies distort markets and lead to favoritism and corruption.
When it comes to energy, pray tell when it wasn't a distorted market. In almost all historic energy markets, energy was mined, cut, or in the case of whale oil, killed, and certainly theft was a standard modus. There were always costs that would be passed on to future generations, not to mention current generations.
Renewables have subsidies certainly, and life cycle costs, but far less than fossil fuels and nuclear energy have had and will continue to accumulate over the years.
Irrespective of the finances of this, I strongly support this project for two reason- first, it displaces carbon emissions. Second, it lets environmentalists see solar power for what it will need to become if it is to power our future- multinational companies paving over thousands of acres at a time because unfortunately, putting up a 10 square foot panel on the roof just doesn't cut it. Perhaps over time projects like this will help environmentalists reconsider their stance on nuclear, the only carbon free energy source with little to no environmental impact.
Engineer-types love nuclear because it's technically sophisticated and, if properly implemented, very appealing from a cost-benefit standpoint. But engineering types don't appreciate the importance of politics and economics in making nuclear work -- they don't know how to fit those variables into their equations, and so they just ignore those variables.
I am aware of only one country in the world that has really made nuclear power work safely, efficiently, and with strong public support. That country is France. I think the reason it works well in France is strong public support for science and for government institutions (and government institutions that actually seem to work pretty well). Unfortunately, that description does not currently apply to the United States. In the US, we have a major political party that is constantly working to undermine the effectiveness and authority of the federal government. Without effective government, we cannot have nuclear power.
Engineer-types love nuclear because it's technically sophisticated and, if properly implemented, very appealing from a cost-benefit standpoint. But engineering types don't appreciate the importance of politics and economics in making nuclear work -- they don't know how to fit those variables into their equations, and so they just ignore those variables.
I am aware of only one country in the world that has really made nuclear power work safely, efficiently, and with strong public support. That country is France. I think the reason it works well in France is strong public support for science and for government institutions (and government institutions that actually seem to work pretty well). Unfortunately, that description does not currently apply to the United States. In the US, we have a major political party that is constantly working to undermine the effectiveness and authority of the federal government. Without effective government, we cannot have nuclear power.
As an engineer, I am not pro-nuclear by any stretch, but I don't go out of my way to hamper it either. There's enough history behind Nuclear energy in the U.S. to create a continuing image of poor management, and I would probably be much more amenable, if for example, the U.S. Navy was running them, and had the budget to continue R&D and safe operation.
But that's not the case.
Perhaps its time as well for the Nuclear Industry to embrace the fact of Climate Change, and throw Coal under the bus. I would actually like to see that occur, but as many if not most of the Utilities have Coal fired operations, this will never happen.
Good luck getting the biggest polluters to throw coal under the bus (metaphorically speaking).