View Single Post
Old 06-02-2018, 03:07 PM   #1944 (permalink)
aerohead
Master EcoModder
 
aerohead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 13,218
Thanks: 21,151
Thanked 6,429 Times in 4,006 Posts
grid,etc..

Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5 View Post
No, connecting the grid is a matter of economics. We don't will things into being, we act on that will, which requires expenditure of resources. Expenditure of resources has to be weighed against the opportunity cost (the things you can no longer afford if you expend resources a particular way)


Yeah, just like cancer is just something we have to design for. Very complex problems are no simple task, which isn't to say they aren't solvable or unworthy of making an attempt, but a reliable interconnected grid powered almost exclusively by renewable energy is seriously difficult. I mean, we're pretty sophisticated as a species now, in fact the most sophisticated we've ever been, and we don't already have this wonder system in place.



Well, we're not talking about an existential threat to the entire planet, therefore economics is nearly everything.



It isn't just a medium of exchange. It's also a:
  • Unit of Account- Standard numerical monetary unit of measurement of market value of goods and services
  • Standard of Deferred Payment- Method of settling debts. When you perform work for an employer, they become indebted to you, and settle this debt by issuing a paycheck.
  • Store of Value- Relatively stable store of value until it is converted to a medium of exchange at a later time

In other words, money represents future ability to produce goods and services. No money, no goods and services, and no extremely complex and resource intensive renewable energy systems.



I don't know who Lomberg is, so I'm unfamiliar with how well regarded he is regarding the discussion at hand. Reputation aside, if any person has compelling evidence to support a claim, I'm very eager to see it, and willing to accept reasonable conclusions.



I'd look to other countries that have receding populations as a study in what works well, and what does not (Japan). I'm not convinced the contraction is the steep cliff you allude to, and anticipate more of a gentle downward slope.

As long as people are laboring for their money, it is immoral to take that earned money to distribute to those who have not labored. When robots are doing most of the laboring and there are no jobs for people, then distribution of wealth is moral.
*The grid is being inter-tied as we speak.
*Obviously,some economists did the life-cycle-cost-analysis and grid-tie won out.
*As a mechanical engineer I can tell you that,once a decision to do something is made,then bricks and mortar fly.There are zero technological hurdles to a nationwide grid,with renewables powering it.
*If you've followed extant literature on climate change,then there is no other conclusion except that it is an existential global threat.
*Since you're quoting Lomberg verbatim I presumed that you'd read his Skeptical Environmentalist of 2001.He's an associate professor of economics,teaches statistics,in the Political Science Dept, of a Norwegian university.His idol was Professor Julian Simon,of which you also quote.
*The US Dollar was redeemable in gold as well as silver when I was a child.Since 1964 that is no longer so.All you have is the faith that someone else will accept them in exchange for a product or service.As paper or coin they have no inherent value.
__________________
Photobucket album: http://s1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj622/aerohead2/
 
The Following User Says Thank You to aerohead For This Useful Post:
NeilBlanchard (06-04-2018)