U. S. solar power - a summary

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
You do realize that if solar was not profitable...no one would be in the market...not even the democrats.

If there is a demand, there shall be a supply. When supply is met, demand shall follow.

current technology restricts us form having 'employable' solar power. oil was never truly 'employable' either, not until the turn of the century when it replaced steam.

I am not saying we should go all solar, but we do have those who are trying to make it more efficient. Those who research and develop said cells have no gov't backing. Guess what...they fall. Why? They spend time on complex designs instead of the basic principles of photovoltaic. Now, when the gov't gets involved, the market goes sky high...then will possibly crash. If the alternative energy sector of the US economy...the ones that are not publicly funded...disappear, guess what will happen?

I say give it about 20 more years until we can have cells that have higher power ratings. That is why I am a fan of graphene really.

 
See...as a wanna-be future scientist/innovator, I see this as motive for political war. The economy cannot feather another war...not on our soil to make it more clear.

When a new technology emerges, you don't flood the market with said product. Instead, you introduce it slowly so you don't drop your price so dramatically:

Ex:

High supply, low demand.

Equilibrium may be lower than initial investment. That is what I see.
 
One does not just place solar cells wherever. The demand has to be created before supply can be met. OR...you create the supply, place it on standby outside of the market, advertize, and wait for demand to increase.
 
Jeez ... my folks have 8 solar panels on their house and it cuts their power bill in half ... as the Aussie Govt buys the power from the owner.

Is that system in place in the US?

It seems sound!!
 
So Obama is playing the waiting game you state to finally buckle to his policies regarding oil and coal.Swift move I must say on his part.
 

Like wind power, solar power is not profitable without the subsidies.


Your folks are being paid by your government to do something. That is a subsidy.
 

You do realize it is the subsidies that are helping artificially drive up prices, right? The US gov't is creating an artificial market that is not stable. I feel like we should let venture capital take over and allow the market determine pricing.
 
Here is an example:

Marry has a lemonade stand. Marcus has a lime stand.

Both are fruit that people drink; however, Marcus can't get sales due to low demand of lime flavored beverages. The neighborhood head feels like that lime would be better for people because it has less sugar than lemonade. So, the head gives Marcus money to make more limeade for customers, following Say's law: Supply creates its own Demand.

Pretty soon, Marcus is able to drive up sales.

Now, those who favor the neighborhood head agree that Marcus deserved the surplus. There are those who did not favor such expenditure. Marry's sales begin to hurt. Marry cannot do anything except wait for the 'market' to take care of things. Now, Keynes law comes into effect: Demand creates its own Supply.

Marcus has only enough resources,( land, labor, capital and/or entrepreneurship,) to make certain amount of limeade. Pretty soon, high demand and low supply drives up prices. Marcus therefor cannot compete with high prices against Marry, so others go to Marry because she has a cheaper more available products that was/in not inflated.

The analogy hopefully is clear: Marry is oil, Marcus is AE. When the neighborhood head, ( gov't) gave money to Marcus (AE), they drove up prices by messing with the market. The principle of economic stability does not play into effect when and initial investment is made. Why do you think we have regulations in private transaction?

This is the best I could do. Other than that, ask your local economics major about such thing.

dogman out.

P.S. I do think that the govt can positively influence the market. They just need to stop playing ( place favorite sport here).
 
You disagree with Say then. Do you agree with Keynes demand creates its own supply?

I have to agree with you on this that regulations are hurting our energy system here in America. However, what are you going to do with the einvornmentalist who lobby and stop you from consuming gasoline, kerosene, coal, natural gas, and some renewable tech like hydro? Nothing can stop them, but they can stop you!

Issue I: Who is stopping our energy policy

Issue II: How can we make solar more efficient?

Issue III: Is this really an issue? why do politics have to play into this?
 
Lets just say they invent an engine that gets a 1,000 miles to the gallon. Would the gas industry embrace that tech or try to suppress it? Or a viable alternative energy source, engines that run on whatever whatever. The largest companies in the world would literally fail overnight.

Why would anyone make poop flavored lollipops? There must have been some demand for him to make a ton...... Or his neighbors dog told him to.
 


If energy became free such as cold fusion, or enough alternative energy sources were available, what would happen?
 


"Say's law did not posit that (as per the Keynesian formulation of Say's law) "supply creates its own demand". Neither was it based on the idea that all that is saved will be exchanged. Rather, Say sought to refute the idea that production and employment were limited by low consumption."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Say's_law

Simply put, you are misinterpreting the law. As someone mentioned previously about some "tasty" lollipops, the simplified interpretation of "Supply creates it's own Demand" is entirely false. If such a thing were to be to be true then everyone would make money by producing whatever they want. I think I'd venture to sell carbon dioxide.
 

The energy market would shift? I could see BP, Exxon, and the rest embracing it if it provided means of greater capital than oil. Oil will still be here. We need plastic, cosmetics, chemo-therapeutic technology, and rubber band for our homemade banjos.

I doubt 'cold fusion' will happen. More like supper heated fusion by ITER and DEMO.
 
Free energy would pretty much make all the energy companies obsolete right now. How many cornered animals just say screw it the free market wants us dead. None. Its not about lemons vs limes, its about a product that makes lemons and limes obsolete.

If you agree that corporations are people dont they have a right to self preservation? Isnt that in direct conflict for with our belief in for the better good?



 
Self preservation by corporations is great if they can do so by successfully evolving as a company in different environments. Unfortunately the U.S. political system makes this a joke. Survival of companies is no longer due to efficient production of valuable resources/products/technologies, but instead lies with corporate lobbyists in Washington - the key to letting them milk profits off stale, stagnant products and keeping down innovative new technologies and products. Lobbying is, in large part, the reason for some of our major economic inefficiencies; it is quite sad that so much potential economic prosperity is lost to do lobbying (read: legal bribery).
 


So nuclear plants aren't needed, coal mining isn't needed, etc.

Coal mining for example.. all the tech that goes into developing that is no required anymore, or the requirements are very small. So these guys are out of work, the companies that sell them equipment are out of business, etc.

See where that goes? You end up with a lot of people without anything to do... There would be a halo effect from each business to each person. While in theory is may be a good thing, I don't think society is anywhere near ready for something like that.
 



Is this a criticism of capitalism, too big to disappear? We have purchased our way into a corner, everything is based on oil so we cant stop now. I think its kind of interesting your argument against any type of energy other than fossil fuel based, including coal is because we as a society can deal with the change.

So what would you do riser if you had an epiphany and thought up an infinite energy device? Would you destroy it?

If I invented a free energy reactor I would do precisely what Tony Stark did and build myself some sweet armor and life life like a playboy billionaire with a toy so cool they dont even have laws against it yet. Screw everybody else......

 
Not at all, but you have the understand the implications of changes. You would all those people without the structure around them. Many people require that kind of stability.. and in short time that can be completely removed.

On top of that it could never be truly free, it would still cost money to purchase power, or a monthly fee. Maintenance will need to be done, heck maybe they'll even do up a pension for all the people without jobs.

You look at it skewered thinking it to be about oil. No, this is about the foundation of society and the structure that governs daily activity.
 
I fail to see how coal and oil are the foundations of society, that kind of thinking will never allow any other thoughts, like clean energy. I believe society existed for quite some time before we became dependent on oil. That speaks volumes about our society if inexpensive energy would cause it to crumble.....

I wouldn't try to break down the device in the analogy. I guess a better description would be an engine that creates more energy than is put into it. A device that was 110% efficient, or energy so cheap it might as well be free, just use your imagination.

So what would you do with that device, and how does corporate preservation work?

Doesn't supply and demand come into effect here, with a device like that or cheaper than oil technologies doesn't the supply control the demand? Since when did supply and demand care how able you are to handle change?
 
Is it you don't want to, or are you unable to separate an economic issue from a society issue?

If a clean energy was efficient today and abundant in 5 years, do you not see any kind of negative impact on society? The amount of workers who are out of jobs without a valid skillset, the amount of companies that would shut down in support of those operations alone? We would have hundreds of thousands of unemployed people in this country alone.

In having that, free energy will never exist. People will still have to pay for it for maintenance, upgrades, continued research, etc. That's fine and I fully would expect that.

You're all over the place with your argument. Either you're not grasping a major portion of the argument, or you are completely ignoring it.
 
Funny, here I am the evil conservative arguing for the blue collar worker's job and careers. Yet, you're so quick to dismiss them and not worry about what happens to them if a free energy source became available.

Finally, a perfect example of how much you really don't care about society, only the advancement of idea without taking into account the effect on society.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom