I want to know why that is. Why does it have to make instant profit
Because current society runs too well and that's now the expectation. The current generation did not need to build much of what they use, it was already there made by previous generations and affordable with no effort. And there isn't anything we really need or lack on top of it... it's hard to find something one would want that doesn't already exist, so why bother doing anything. The only valid reward for putting in some effort is huge fast return, then MAYBE someone will move their ass, anything else is not worth the hassle, especailly given the current regulatory complexities that make doing things way more ridiculously complicated than they should be, regardless of what you want to do it seems nowadays the first thing you've got to do is hire a lawyer to see if there's any chance of it being accepted rater than actually creating something.
why can't it be seen as an investment in the future?
Future? Meh, things run, they'll continue to do so for any foreseeable furure (i.e. as long as we're alive). Who cares beyond that, it'll be even more broken than it's now anyway.
They're also useful for emergencies. I've paid partial credit card balances a couple of times in my life when there was something expensive/urgent and I simply didn't have the cash. A couple of months interest isn't so bad if it gets you out of a hole.
There are plenty of unforeseen things that can happen, but I start feeling really nervous if I don't have at least several months salary in the bank.
PV and their infrastructure has service costs, limited lifetimes of components and their associated write off costs as well. Costs which are for the moment higher than fuelling the fossil fuel plants, which you'll need to maintain as backup any way. The cost of that necessary backup needs to be added to the cost of PV.
Yes, but that's today, where solar plants are purely used for electricity production.
I'm talking about building a solar-powered PV-panel production factory. This changes the economics significantly because such a plant has two outputs, electricity and solar panels.
There has to be a tipping point where the panels become free to produce. Wages, transport costs, etc., are paid for by selling the electricity produced by those panels. Eventually a s tipping point will be reached where the whole system becomes self sustaining and electricity costs will plummet.
Yes, it will cost money to build but:
a) It's a worthwhile investment, much better than warmongering and bailing out wall-street bankers.
b) Not doing this, continuing to burn fossil fuels, has a much bigger long term cost (90% likely to be catastrophic for the economy).
c) The first country to do it will have a massive manufacturing advantage over the rest of the world and will easily recover the startup cost.
If you build your self funded solar panel machine the result would be a large pile of free panels, barring other inputs. You have to have something to hang them from, wires to connect them and so on. I know you will want to just extend the paradigm to have your free power machine to pay for those other costs. Which may or may not be possible. Since the panels have a finite life you can't just automatically end up with free stuff.
Still there is quite a range between free and "too expensive" where this could be practical. Solar panels don't have to be free, just affordable. They're already to where in favorable conditions they pay for themselves.
If you build your self funded solar panel machine the result would be a large pile of free panels, barring other inputs. You have to have something to hang them from, wires to connect them and so on.
I have a feeling that problem would solve itself.
(also a lot of jobs would be created for solar panel installers)
all those nuclear bomb factories (aka "power stations") were built in the 1950s.
Nuclear power plants aren't bomb factories, not even remotely.
all those nuclear bomb factories (aka "power stations") were built in the 1950s.
Nuclear power plants aren't bomb factories, not even remotely.
Really? So why is the USA so worried about Iran building a few nuclear power stations?
Really? So why is the USA so worried about Iran building a few nuclear power stations?
IDK, but one's political views and prejudices are a bit off topic you know? So please... Thank you very much.
Really? So why is the USA so worried about Iran building a few nuclear power stations?
Probably because if they can enrich the fuel to supply power stations, they can enrich the fuel to "weapons-grade". There's quite a bit of work and equipment involved going from what you put into a reactor to what you put into a bomb, though.
Really? So why is the USA so worried about Iran building a few nuclear power stations?
Probably because if they can enrich the fuel to supply power stations, they can enrich the fuel to "weapons-grade". There's quite a bit of work and equipment involved going from what you put into a reactor to what you put into a bomb, though.
Obviously, but the so-called "dual purpose" reactors built in the 1950 and 1960s were specifically
designed to make the job much easier by producing weapons-grade plutonium on demand.
eg.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-Reactorhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MagnoxPS: The Magnox reactors used non-enriched Uranium as fuel.
...the reactor was designed as both a power plant and, when operated with low fuel "burnup",
as a producer of plutonium-239 for the nascent nuclear weapons program in Britain.
This intentional dual-use approach to building electric power-reactors in the early
Cold War era was also typical in other nations
Really? So why is the USA so worried about Iran building a few nuclear power stations?
IDK, but one's political views and prejudices are a bit off topic you know? So please... Thank you very much.
Prejudices?
OK, let me re-word it: Why is the
world so worried about Iran building a few nuclear power stations?
The answer you're trying to avoid is: Because Iran would become a member of the
"Nuclear Club".
guess who got them started on this project, way back during the Ford Administration?
If the solar panel installation project received funding from any state entity on any level, it's debatable what the likelihood of local job creation would be. It depends on how low the wages are in that country.
If you build your self funded solar panel machine the result would be a large pile of free panels, barring other inputs. You have to have something to hang them from, wires to connect them and so on.
I have a feeling that problem would solve itself.
(also a lot of jobs would be created for solar panel installers)
It might solve itself. But might not. The re-cycling industry gives good examples of things where free isn't cheap enough. Glass. Newsprint. And other things. Recyclers in many locations have stopped accepting these and other materials in many locations because they couldn't get rid of enormous piles of these materials. Even by giving it away, and in some cases paying a small fee to those willing to haul it away and use it. In those cases even a negative cost wasn't good enough.
Really? So why is the USA so worried about Iran building a few nuclear power stations?
Cause can't upgrade to Shah of Iran version 2.0 anymore as version 1.0 is gone, while a fresh installation sounds impossible now, thats why, its never about nuclear anyway.
Two posts about two different subjects
Its important to understand that both US parties support this policy, don't be misled by the title into thinking it would just be one.
Basically, because the US wants to promote a policy of not "local sourcing" we brought a case against India for ..... Read the wording carefully, you'll probably see this framing again in the future..
http://www.iatp.org/blog/201602/obama-undermines-climate-efforts-in-solar-trade-disputeAlso, this is about nuclear power and Iran.
At one point in the 1950s, Iran had a secular, democratic government but they wanted to run their oil industry themselves..then we (the US and the UK)
overthrew that government.. then installed this really vicious madman, Reza Pahlavi.. While he was in power...
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb521-Irans-Nuclear-Program-1975-vs-2015/Then of course he was overthrown, leading to the mullahs, who were also horrible..
Its just nuts.
Also, this is about nuclear power and Iran.
At one point in the 1950s, Iran had a secular, democratic government but they wanted to run their oil industry themselves..then we (the US and the UK)
overthrew that government.. then installed this really vicious madman, Reza Pahlavi.. While he was in power...
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb521-Irans-Nuclear-Program-1975-vs-2015/
Then of course he was overthrown, leading to the mullahs, who were also horrible..
Its just nuts.
Yes, as I posted a few posts above. It was called
Operation AjaxBrought to you by Allen Dulles who really got the the CIA's wonderful world contributions going:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So now we know that good ways to rile up Dave include how to pronounce Bode and talking about AGW....
Anyone remember all the global cooling / new ice age bull crap from the 70s?
So now we know that good ways to rile up Dave include how to pronounce Bode and talking about AGW....
Or being christian, or jew, or whatever I guess. Even hare krishna. He is religiously atheist, huh! How cool is that?
Anyone remember all the global cooling / new ice age bull crap from the 70s?
its all just political scaremongering.
as sydney harbour shud be deep under water
and polar bears shud be homeless by now.
Anyone remember all the global cooling / new ice age bull crap from the 70s?
Yeah, well ... we've built some weather satellites since then.
Back then a few dozen people used to go outside and write thermometer readings in little books with a pencil.
Now we can see the entire world in real time and even see the temperatures of the oceans
and the poles(!)
Anyone remember all the global cooling / new ice age bull crap from the 70s?
Yeah, well ... we've built some weather satellites since then.
Back then a few dozen people used to go outside and write thermometer readings in little books with a pencil.
Now we can see the entire world in real time and even see the temperatures of the oceans and the poles(!)
Yes, and the "flash in the pan" idea in 1974-1975 that there was global cooling was mostly a media event due to a pair of Time and Newsweek articles. Even back then it was greenhouse warming not cooling that dominated the thinking in the scientific community.
See here
Back then a few dozen people used to go outside and write thermometer readings in little books with a pencil.
Now we can see the entire world in real time and even see the temperatures of the oceans and the poles(!)
Yet we are sure the present heating is unprecedented and MWP/LIA were local.