Electric Cars and Solar Power Kills babies.

Jboily · Post by **Jboily** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:23 am

TallDave wrote:
So, the more people there are, the more the economy can expand as they then need more.
No, no, no, a thousand times no. Wealth is created by production, not by need.

Well, here is a circular argument here. Production is a results of needs.

I would say, needs is the source of everything. The need of food, need of water, need for entertainment and sources of pleasure once subsistence needs are met. Inventions only come out of needs that are not fulfilled. Wealth comes from enough production to fulfill the needs. Now, more needs are created when in a states of sufficient wealth.

As far as the killing of the babies, this is quite misinformed. Wealth comes from production, which comes from technologies, which come from the needs to be met. The development of electrical cars is a new technology that will allow more efficient energies resources utilization. It comes out from the needs to reduce pollution and help control the climate, while reducing America dependencies on foreign oil. This is a very complex economic system, but I would say that before technologies, 100K years ago, there was less then 1 million human surviving (even then, we had some tools and fire). The population grew as more technologies came to be, allowing more to survive.

So, I would argue that developing new technologies usually lead to a increase in human population, not a decrease.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 2:31 am

Production is a results of needs.

If that is so then where were the fusion reactors I need 10,000 years ago?

Need may be necessary. It is not sufficient.

So, I would argue that developing new technologies usually lead to a increase in human population, not a decrease.

Up to a point. Past that point desire for bling bling causes a reduction in population.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 2:42 am

jmc wrote:Hmm. I think the baby killing statement is way over the top, he seems to have a rabidly vehement attitude to all things green with an intensity that I've only ever come across from some American types.

If you assume a minimum weight to make the car safe and take into account the weight of the passengers and the reduced weight of the engine, then you can build an electric car that is just as efficient as a petrol car, provided you are prepared to make do with a reduced range.

The electric engine can achieve efficiencies of 80%. It also reduces the wasteful use of valuable finite oil and increases urban airquality

There are no 80% efficient electric engines if you account for the source of electricity.

The deal is. If it costs (currently) $2 a ton mile (hypothetical) to move goods/humans and you raise the cost to $4 a ton mile fewer people are going to be able to afford the goods moved. On the margin it will cause more starvation than reducing the cost to move the goods to $1 a ton mile. Or even keeping the costs the same.

Green is a good idea. It would be much better if the roll out was determined by economics rather than government fiat.

Torulf2 · Post by **Torulf2** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:42 pm

The relation, technology/human population have historical been as you said but is now reversed. more technologic advanced nation tends to have lower birth-rate.

ravingdave · Post by **ravingdave** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:54 pm

Doesn't anyone know what "tongue in cheek" means?

David

Torulf2 · Post by **Torulf2** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:56 pm

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:56 pm

ravingdave wrote:Doesn't anyone know what "tongue in cheek" means?

:)

David

See a doctor.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 3:03 pm

MSimon wrote: Green is a good idea. It would be much better if the roll out was determined by economics rather than government fiat.

Economics...Good. Government fiat... Bad... unless that government fiat is to end all the government subsidies set up in the past.

The manta seems to be "level the field and many green technologies will be more cost effective", by which they mean give green the same subsidies. I prefer removing ALL the non-green subsidies.

TallDave · Post by **TallDave** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 4:38 pm

Jboily wrote:
TallDave wrote:
So, the more people there are, the more the economy can expand as they then need more.
No, no, no, a thousand times no. Wealth is created by production, not by need.
Well, here is a circular argument here. Production is a results of needs.

Consumption is a result of need. Production is a result of people producing things. Economic activity is generally limited by ability to produce. There are always more needs to be met.

This is easy to illustrate. China has three times as many people as the U.S., but China is much poorer than the U.S. If economic activity were more a function of need than of production, this wouldn't happen.

Helius · Post by **Helius** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 10:41 pm

Consumption is a result of need.

That's a little strong. I don't "need" my next beverage, but I'll consume it anyway. It's more of a sudsy want than a need.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 12:36 am

KitemanSA wrote:
MSimon wrote: Green is a good idea. It would be much better if the roll out was determined by economics rather than government fiat.
Economics...Good. Government fiat... Bad... unless that government fiat is to end all the government subsidies set up in the past.

The manta seems to be "level the field and many green technologies will be more cost effective", by which they mean give green the same subsidies. I prefer removing ALL the non-green subsidies.

The greens are innumerate. The green subsidies are an order of magnitude higher than the subsidies for other forms of energy production.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 1:01 am

MSimon wrote: The greens are innumerate. The green subsidies are an order of magnitude higher than the subsidies for other forms of energy production.

Dig deeper.
Actually, don't and you will be subsidized for failure. Then do it later and SHAZAMM, there is oil there after all, what a lucky stroke!

TallDave · Post by **TallDave** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 1:04 am

Helius wrote:
Consumption is a result of need.
That's a little strong. I don't "need" my next beverage, but I'll consume it anyway. It's more of a sudsy want than a need.

Which illustrates my point nicely: you are able to consume more than someone poorer not because you have more needs than they do, but because you and your society are productive enough that the marginal cost to you is smaller.

Someone making $1/day is much less likely to buy a $1 beer than someone who makes $200/day. Thus are new markets created.

Roger · Post by **Roger** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 4:43 am

MSimon wrote:
Green is a good idea. It would be much better if the roll out was determined by economics rather than government fiat.

Its been 30 yrs, you want me wait even longer?

KitemanSA wrote: I prefer removing ALL the non-green subsidies.

Yes, I could see that leveling the field.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:46 am

Roger wrote:
MSimon wrote:Green is a good idea. It would be much better if the roll out was determined by economics rather than government fiat.
Its been 30 yrs, you want me wait even longer?

If green electricity costs a LOT more than than current electricity (it does) eventually when there is enough green in the mix it will choke off further green deployment. Because it will raise the cost of producing more to where it is prohibitive. The money will go to staying alive.

The economic green roll out could be faster with more R&D. A LOT more. But that wouldn't take much $$. Just time.

Think about it: now money has to be extracted from the economy for green electricity. If it was lower cost than current electricity the effect would be regenerative freeing up more and more capital as green was deployed. Deploying green now reduces capital stocks.

You have only been waiting 30 years? I have been waiting 47. I did my first solar cell electronic project in 1962. It pays to be an old man. You get patience. And death becomes a constant companion. Death is very friendly. And patient.