Tonight's debate

[Ziggy]

If the technology isn't "there yet," then it behooves us, it is forward-thinking of us, to be at the forefront of developing that technology. Henry Ford's assembly line invention set the stage for American production dominance for the majority of the last century. It was difficult and expensive to develop factories like nobody had ever seen before, yet Ford did it - and we won two world wars based on Ford's concept of mass production.

 

Allowing other countries to develop alternative energies is a terribly backward-thinking mentality.

 

The difference is Ford had private investors that produced a product that people wanted and could afford. The Green Energy phase is mostly government driven across the globe. Saying that, most new products have a natural life cycle, first being high cost and low demand, people who buy it are well to do and want the newest things, then price goes down, and demand goes up, and it begins to get into the houses of every day people, the last stage is price bottoms out and demand is at is highest, those products are considered staples of everyday life. Every product foes through this cycle, the problem is almost all of the green technology is too expensive for most Americans to invest in. We need to find ways to decrease the cost of current technology, and increase demand. The idea that instead of paying rent to energy providers every month, we could get to the point we pay mortgages on being energy independent and occasionally get a check from energy providers when we over produce electricity is where we need to be.

 

Another point many people fail to make is that our current energy infrastructure is over worked and under protected. If we can reduce the energy demand of citys and suburbs, we can reduce the impact of terrorist attacks on our energy infrastructure. Maybe forcing new buildings to include some energy saving or energy creating technologies is something that would help, that has a three main benefits of reducing energy needs, and reducing demand on preexisting infrastructure, and helping build demand for green energies.

[VectorVictor]

Or maybe is simply that these new technologies are just not economically feasible yet. Witness the massive amounts of stimulus funds dumped into many of these solar companies. If those millions and billions of dollars can't help some individual small companies over the hump, I'm afraid that the industry is just not ready to take off and flourish. I'm sure there is some resistance from the old guard energy suppliers but I have seen indications that many of them are also embracing the new technology. Here in Colorado you can get some pretty favorable credits for going solar and Public Service Co. will give you the going rate for any extra kilowatts you generate and put back into their grid. That isn't making it less conducive. The fact is the technology is just not quite there yet. I have seen large arrays of solar panels being installed in many projects. It appears there is enough volume in the manufacture of solar panels to achieve mfg efficiencies. It is quite simply just too expensive to produce them and compete against existing technologies. At least that is my take on it.

Is Colorado public utilities like we have in NE? Or the completely deregulated catastrophe that Cali has?

 

Or Texass?

[Bradr]

While discussing energy independence, it is probably also worth noting freshwater supplies.

 

Being as that 80-90% of the world's non-glacier freshwater is made up of groundwater deposits (and the other 10-20% is lakes/rivers), we in the US also have the as-yet largest groundwater deposit in the world - the ogallala aquifer. Unfortunately we are draining it faster than it is recharging, but it is still another tremendous resource of the US.

[Junior]

I have actually looked into this for myself. I live on an acreage with a building with a perfect roof facing south for solar panels. I could be completely off the grid. The problem is that when I got a quote for it, it was something like $180,000. Not feasible.

 

 

I'll never understand why every new building being put up isn't fitted with solar panels on their rooves.

[strigori]

I have actually looked into this for myself. I live on an acreage with a building with a perfect roof facing south for solar panels. I could be completely off the grid. The problem is that when I got a quote for it, it was something like $180,000. Not feasible.

 

 

I'll never understand why every new building being put up isn't fitted with solar panels on their rooves.

Same reason why plenty of new buildings install used equipment in areas of the building. Short term savings at the cost of long term savings. And many times the guy who paid for the building to be built, is not the same guy who is going to be paying for the utilities, so they do everything as cheap as possible, only adhering to the 'minimum code' for whatever municipality they are building in.

[Junior]

I have actually looked into this for myself. I live on an acreage with a building with a perfect roof facing south for solar panels. I could be completely off the grid. The problem is that when I got a quote for it, it was something like $180,000. Not feasible.

 

 

I'll never understand why every new building being put up isn't fitted with solar panels on their rooves.

Same reason why plenty of new buildings install used equipment in areas of the building. Short term savings at the cost of long term savings. And many times the guy who paid for the building to be built, is not the same guy who is going to be paying for the utilities, so they do everything as cheap as possible, only adhering to the 'minimum code' for whatever municipality they are building in.

 

Oh, I get why.... I just don't understand the shortsighted thinking.

[VectorVictor]

While discussing energy independence, it is probably also worth noting freshwater supplies.

 

Being as that 80-90% of the world's non-glacier freshwater is made up of groundwater deposits (and the other 10-20% is lakes/rivers), we in the US also have the as-yet largest groundwater deposit in the world - the ogallala aquifer. Unfortunately we are draining it faster than it is recharging, but it is still another tremendous resource of the US.

 

Ahh, but if we build the Keystone pipeline, we won't have to worry about that...

 

...because the Ogallala Aquifer would be tainted by oil spills, if Keystone's existing pipelines are any indication.

 

I guess the Keystone Pipeline does solve as many problems as it creates?

[ZRod]

While discussing energy independence, it is probably also worth noting freshwater supplies.

 

Being as that 80-90% of the world's non-glacier freshwater is made up of groundwater deposits (and the other 10-20% is lakes/rivers), we in the US also have the as-yet largest groundwater deposit in the world - the ogallala aquifer. Unfortunately we are draining it faster than it is recharging, but it is still another tremendous resource of the US.

 

Ahh, but if we build the Keystone pipeline, we won't have to worry about that...

 

...because the Ogallala Aquifer would be tainted by oil spills, if Keystone's existing pipelines are any indication.

 

I guess the Keystone Pipeline does solve as many problems as it creates?

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, but I myself am against the Pipeline not for environmental reasons though. As someone who took a soils class and has a science background (being slightly sarcastic here) I'm pretty confident that if any kind of a leak happened it wouldn't taint the aquifer. I think the soil and microbes would act like a filter before it reached that point. I think even the President's advisers have said it wouldn't have a significant effect on the aquifer if there was a leak.

[strigori]

I have actually looked into this for myself. I live on an acreage with a building with a perfect roof facing south for solar panels. I could be completely off the grid. The problem is that when I got a quote for it, it was something like $180,000. Not feasible.

 

 

I'll never understand why every new building being put up isn't fitted with solar panels on their rooves.

Same reason why plenty of new buildings install used equipment in areas of the building. Short term savings at the cost of long term savings. And many times the guy who paid for the building to be built, is not the same guy who is going to be paying for the utilities, so they do everything as cheap as possible, only adhering to the 'minimum code' for whatever municipality they are building in.

 

Oh, I get why.... I just don't understand the shortsighted thinking.

There are often situations where someone gets a bonus for coming in under budget, its all greed.

[JJ Husker]

If the technology isn't "there yet," then it behooves us, it is forward-thinking of us, to be at the forefront of developing that technology. Henry Ford's assembly line invention set the stage for American production dominance for the majority of the last century. It was difficult and expensive to develop factories like nobody had ever seen before, yet Ford did it - and we won two world wars based on Ford's concept of mass production.

 

Allowing other countries to develop alternative energies is a terribly backward-thinking mentality.

I agree with what you're saying but, I might disagree a little with what I think you're implying.

I agree that US companies should be at the forefront of developing that technology and it would be nice if US companies were leaders and instrumental in developing these alternative energies. However, I also think it is an issue best left to free enterprise and capitalism with the governments involvement being don't hinder it or get in the way. Heck, the government can even encourage it in various ways but where I draw the line is directly taking US taxpayer money and then trying to pick the winners of free stimulus type funds. Market forces will determine when the time is right for the technology and US business and entreprenuers have consistently come through (much like Henry Ford) with meeting the challenges of developement, production, and marketing. Our governments track record at those things has not been good. They need to pay attention to trade issues, environmental and labor issues, and keeping the international playing field level for our businesses and get away from the recent tendency of trying to pick the right gizmo or company to directly encourage.

 

BTW- The History channel is running a 4 part series "The Men Who Built America". It is very interesting and is focusing on Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, Carnegie, JP Morgan, and Henry Ford. I'm ashamed to say I really was only somewhat familiar with Rockefeller and Ford, and almost completely unfamiliar with the other three. I have watched the first two parts and have learned a bunch I did not know. I was aware these guys were somewhat ruthless and that there was a very good reason for the rise of unions but, I had no idea they were quite the bastards they apparently were. Anyway, it's on Tuesday nights and I'm sure there will be opportunities to get caught up with the first two episodes if you are so inclined.

[JJ Husker]

 

 

I'll never understand why every new building being put up isn't fitted with solar panels on their rooves.

Same reason why plenty of new buildings install used equipment in areas of the building. Short term savings at the cost of long term savings. And many times the guy who paid for the building to be built, is not the same guy who is going to be paying for the utilities, so they do everything as cheap as possible, only adhering to the 'minimum code' for whatever municipality they are building in.

 

Oh, I get why.... I just don't understand the shortsighted thinking.

There are often situations where someone gets a bonus for coming in under budget, its all greed.

 

You guys really don't understand how this works do you?

It has extremely little if nothing at all to do with "minimum code", a bonus, or greed.

Step #1- The building owner, be it the person who will occupy the space or the guy who hopes to sell the building or the space (otherwise known as the guy actually paying for the building), has architects and engineers design a building.

Step #2- These parties go through all kinds of give and take to make the design and specifications fit the owners budget and desires. There are some minimum code issues that may prevent the owner from cutting the cost too far but, it is not as simple as just ratcheting up the code requirements unless you are willing to accept a whole lot less developement. Of course the owner has to take into account, among many other things, energy costs and efficiencies for operating this building because if he doesn't, it is going to cost him in operating it or by not being able to market it.

Step #3- They put out plans and specs and get competitive bids. The lowest bidder is not always the party awarded the job but that is usually how it goes. Sometimes the builder or subs will offer "value engineering" options that the owner can consider. These can be virtually anything and sometimes will actually include items that increase the price to build but may reduce the price to operate the building, thus the term "value".

Step #4- They begin construction. Keep in mind that the specs and design are pretty well set at this point. The builder and subs cannot simply start substituting inferior quality items at this point out of greed or bonus opportunities. It is up to the general contractor, architects, engineers, and building owner to make sure the owner is actually getting what he agreed to pay for. Some contractors will offer under budget and under time bonus' to their project managers. The best way to attain those goals is to build correctly and efficiently, not by substituting "old" equipment or items that don't meet the specs.

 

Yes, greed will drive some people to do questionable things but it is only someone elses incompetence or corruptness that can allow them to get away with it. All in all, the system works pretty well with the owner getting what he agreed to pay for. If energy efficiency or alternative energies is not on his list of important items, chances are nobody was going to pay for a roof covered with solar panels anyways. Sorry but you can't simply force the guy paying for the building to spend more money than he wants to spend. Unless your goal is to increase vacancy rates, reduce developement, increase unemployment, etc.

[carlfense]

I was aware these guys were somewhat ruthless and that there was a very good reason for the rise of unions but, I had no idea they were quite the bastards they apparently were.

I think that fact is often lost in modern union bashing. Unions were quite necessary in some industries. Yes, union overreach (pay completely out of line with non-union shops and/or very short working hours for example) is a problem. Similarly, employer overreach is (or has been) a problem. It's not a black and white situation.

[strigori]

 

 

I'll never understand why every new building being put up isn't fitted with solar panels on their rooves.

Same reason why plenty of new buildings install used equipment in areas of the building. Short term savings at the cost of long term savings. And many times the guy who paid for the building to be built, is not the same guy who is going to be paying for the utilities, so they do everything as cheap as possible, only adhering to the 'minimum code' for whatever municipality they are building in.

 

Oh, I get why.... I just don't understand the shortsighted thinking.

There are often situations where someone gets a bonus for coming in under budget, its all greed.

 

You guys really don't understand how this works do you?

It has extremely little if nothing at all to do with "minimum code", a bonus, or greed.

Step #1- The building owner, be it the person who will occupy the space or the guy who hopes to sell the building or the space (otherwise known as the guy actually paying for the building), has architects and engineers design a building.

Step #2- These parties go through all kinds of give and take to make the design and specifications fit the owners budget and desires. There are some minimum code issues that may prevent the owner from cutting the cost too far but, it is not as simple as just ratcheting up the code requirements unless you are willing to accept a whole lot less developement. Of course the owner has to take into account, among many other things, energy costs and efficiencies for operating this building because if he doesn't, it is going to cost him in operating it or by not being able to market it.

Step #3- They put out plans and specs and get competitive bids. The lowest bidder is not always the party awarded the job but that is usually how it goes. Sometimes the builder or subs will offer "value engineering" options that the owner can consider. These can be virtually anything and sometimes will actually include items that increase the price to build but may reduce the price to operate the building, thus the term "value".

Step #4- They begin construction. Keep in mind that the specs and design are pretty well set at this point. The builder and subs cannot simply start substituting inferior quality items at this point out of greed or bonus opportunities. It is up to the general contractor, architects, engineers, and building owner to make sure the owner is actually getting what he agreed to pay for. Some contractors will offer under budget and under time bonus' to their project managers. The best way to attain those goals is to build correctly and efficiently, not by substituting "old" equipment or items that don't meet the specs.

 

Yes, greed will drive some people to do questionable things but it is only someone elses incompetence or corruptness that can allow them to get away with it. All in all, the system works pretty well with the owner getting what he agreed to pay for. If energy efficiency or alternative energies is not on his list of important items, chances are nobody was going to pay for a roof covered with solar panels anyways. Sorry but you can't simply force the guy paying for the building to spend more money than he wants to spend. Unless your goal is to increase vacancy rates, reduce developement, increase unemployment, etc.

In an ideal world perhaps. Too bad we don't live in that world. I have seen, first hand, a building/renovation plan be changed to accommodate a bonus for some of those involved. And in did involve a great deal of used instead of new equipment. So, it would be at the project management level that the greed took effect. The guys actually doing the work were rather pissed off by the changes, it made their job more frustrating.

 

Re #1 When they do this as described they are, in the vast majority of cases, building a 'box' set up either as a stand alone, or more commonly as a 'strip mall' format. Bayed units set to minimum code. And the renter of the space is allowed to make some limited number of modifications based on the planned use.

 

The 'build to suit' is not as common. And anymore the majority if not all the cost goes to the leaser and not the land owner. Generally in a rent the space, and be responsible for the building sort of thing.

 

The solar panels thing gets into that the property owner(especially in the strip mall type setup) just doesn't care about the costs, he does not pay the utilities, the renter for each bay does. And as his renter bases is going to change repeatedly, he is going to go for the minimum and not worry about it.

[strigori]

 

 

BTW- The History channel is running a 4 part series "The Men Who Built America". It is very interesting and is focusing on Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, Carnegie, JP Morgan, and Henry Ford. I'm ashamed to say I really was only somewhat familiar with Rockefeller and Ford, and almost completely unfamiliar with the other three. I have watched the first two parts and have learned a bunch I did not know. I was aware these guys were somewhat ruthless and that there was a very good reason for the rise of unions but, I had no idea they were quite the bastards they apparently were. Anyway, it's on Tuesday nights and I'm sure there will be opportunities to get caught up with the first two episodes if you are so inclined.

Its startling isnt it? And too few Americans today know nothing about the names, they see a mediocre football team, a number of named buildings in NYC, and bank and a car company. And like the saying goes "Those who do not study history are condemned to repeat it"

[knapplc]

If the technology isn't "there yet," then it behooves us, it is forward-thinking of us, to be at the forefront of developing that technology. Henry Ford's assembly line invention set the stage for American production dominance for the majority of the last century. It was difficult and expensive to develop factories like nobody had ever seen before, yet Ford did it - and we won two world wars based on Ford's concept of mass production.

 

Allowing other countries to develop alternative energies is a terribly backward-thinking mentality.

I agree with what you're saying but, I might disagree a little with what I think you're implying.

I agree that US companies should be at the forefront of developing that technology and it would be nice if US companies were leaders and instrumental in developing these alternative energies. However, I also think it is an issue best left to free enterprise and capitalism with the governments involvement being don't hinder it or get in the way. Heck, the government can even encourage it in various ways but where I draw the line is directly taking US taxpayer money and then trying to pick the winners of free stimulus type funds. Market forces will determine when the time is right for the technology and US business and entreprenuers have consistently come through (much like Henry Ford) with meeting the challenges of developement, production, and marketing. Our governments track record at those things has not been good. They need to pay attention to trade issues, environmental and labor issues, and keeping the international playing field level for our businesses and get away from the recent tendency of trying to pick the right gizmo or company to directly encourage.

 

BTW- The History channel is running a 4 part series "The Men Who Built America". It is very interesting and is focusing on Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, Carnegie, JP Morgan, and Henry Ford. I'm ashamed to say I really was only somewhat familiar with Rockefeller and Ford, and almost completely unfamiliar with the other three. I have watched the first two parts and have learned a bunch I did not know. I was aware these guys were somewhat ruthless and that there was a very good reason for the rise of unions but, I had no idea they were quite the bastards they apparently were. Anyway, it's on Tuesday nights and I'm sure there will be opportunities to get caught up with the first two episodes if you are so inclined.

 

I'll have to check out that series. Hopefully I can catch reruns, since it appears I've missed a couple episodes.

 

I'm with you on private enterprise funding these technologies, but in the past five years, lending ability has gone in the toilet. Private equity has dried up, and government investment is rising. It's not ideal, IMO, but it's an economic reality.

 

I think you and I are largely on the same page, otherwise.