Comments on: Deflationary Trend (Temporarily) Masked by Free Lunches

By: hue

hue — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 14:33:52 +0000

PCs proliferate in part by using old existing infrastructure (DSL copper wire into houses) and Moore’s law, http://bit.ly/4MFMio , cell phones in part by malinvestments by telecoms in networks that we are finally using. The PC by itself was not as useful until the Internet and connectivity, so that doesn’t have anything to do with life cycles or tipping points. you’re not going to see Moore’s law in energy or the electric grid (or most other industries). utilities were regulated in part because their costs are so high. (i’m not sure deregulation works for industries with major start up/fixed costs like airlines or utilities. )

if Moore’s law applied to energy, it would have happened by now when we saw the energy crisis in the 70s.

By: torrie-amos

torrie-amos — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 13:40:29 +0000

a cell phone or a pc could not generate industrial strength support when introduced, it is an issue of the S curve, cost of mfg, cost of sales, profits………let’s take Boone Pickens arguement, use natural gas as fuel sorce for cars, practical, oh yes, more than oil, cause we have a ton of it, like coal……….so who will pay for nat gas infrastructure to build 100,000 or nat gas fuel stations along with nat gas cars and trucks, well, the guys who would have a system in place that works and is paid for and a clear demand, as opposed to a hammer mgf., the hammer guy just picks up his paid for machines and lugs them to china to get cheap labor, the folks who need energy ain’t moving en mass, so the transporter of energy guys have projects they put in 15 years ago that are now just paying off, and paying off big time…………so, the industrial strenght arguement is real and true, yet, why do you have electrical companies building huge behemoth solar power plants, it’s all life cycle, land is cheap, no EPA horrors thru-out whole life cycle, maintenance on a power plant versus a solar field are not even comparable, again life cycle issues……let’s say a power plant has a life cycle of 50 years, yet, in reality you’re maintenance to keep it up and operational shows you’re almost replacing the whole thing every 15 years…………the point is these are long 30 year transformations, imho, the tipping point comes when you can solarize a house or small biz for reasonable roi………..again, pc and cell phone, provide a cost return benefit that fits the average persons budget……………the S curve inflection point of 10% is the tell

By: hue

hue — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:24:37 +0000

bovine wind breakage, lol. that would work, but we need a herd the size of South America just to light up Manhattan. people were just dumb in the 70s. they didn’t realize all of these alternatives were out there.

Transor Z warns of the zombie hordes. i live in hotlanta, we had a gas shortage related to one of the hurricanes in Texas, shutting down the refineries last year. you had to circle and drive for miles to find gas, starting at half a tank or else. the zombies will kill for gas before they kill for food.

biodiesel and China will save us all.

By: uno

uno — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:43:18 +0000

I’d even argue that “alternative energy” is an Innumeracy problem.

People who do not get that solar, wind, algae, bovine wind breakage, etc. will not replace fossile fuel and nuclear power have not broken out a calculator to compare and contrast the relative power output.

These are politically important sources of energy, and will clearly help to offset some small portion of demand, but they’re not real, industrial-strength players.

By: hue

hue — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:38:01 +0000

wind, solar etc. can’t generate comparable electricity as fossil fuel.

this from a 2005 New Yorker article so the technology may have improved:
“Assuming that a thousand megawatt coal-fired power plant produces about 1.5 million tons of carbon a year – in the future, coal plants are expected to become more efficient-to get a wedge out of photovoltaics (solar power cells) would require enough cells to produce seven hundred thousand megawatts … this, it turns out, would require photovoltaic arrays covering the surface area of five million acres — approximately the size of Connecticut.

If there is money to be made in alternative energy, i’m sure Wall Street will flood money that way, excessively too. alternative energy is an engineering problem.

By: danm

danm — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:47:29 +0000

torrie-amos:

I agree with the sunk costs.

But I’ve read that the wind farms are far from producing the levels they were telling us at “IPO” time.

Government susbsidizied a lot of it and everyone and his uncle went in there for a quick money grab.

That’s my biggest beef with alternative energy.

By: torrie-amos

torrie-amos — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:00:47 +0000

bmc,

that should always be the plan, i use your same arguement all the time, if you read books newspapers written 50-100-200 years ago, headlines and themes are all the same always

danm, real cost is always an issue, yet, the inflection points are life cycle and replacement costs corallaries. Buffet buys railroad, a profitable one, he likes because what would it cost too replace it, how much land and mineral rights do you have, can you imagine trying to get EPA approval to build 20,000 miles of rail thru 30 states…………those huge giant windmills they put up if i remember correctly have a life cycle of 50 years when maintained, so yup, the present roi might be 15 years, but on the back end you get 35 years of free, same with pipelines, transmissions lines, etc., high sunk costs, in solar we have approximately 20 years in r&d, we are just getting started

By: uno

uno — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 07:32:23 +0000

Mauldin this weekend: “By that I mean Anything But Dollars. Everyone is now on the same side of the boat. ”

As the Duke used to say: “Ayyy-yup”

By: Pat G.

Pat G. — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:14:52 +0000

Well laid out piece by Alice yet, she still does not believe in the conclusion she reached. I would like to know when she buys as that will surely indicate a top in gold. Or Armageddon.

By: hue

hue — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:46:26 +0000

the reason we use oil is because it’s the most efficient and cost effective,(i’m not talking about the waste products. for electric cars, don’t some power cos. burn oil to generate electricity? you either burn oil products in your car or by your power generator.

it’s like switching from paper grocery bags to plastic. save the trees, and create another environmental problem. unintented consequences.