View Full Version : where should the watts come from
President Obama has laid out a plan called "New Energy for America." Some of the goals are very ambitious. One of them is to have 25% of our electricity come from renewable resources by 2025.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy
The idea is that North Dakota is a windy place, and we just have to build a whole lot of windmills there and then build transmission lines to send all those gigawatts from the plains to places like Chicago. The proposal is out there, and it won't be cheap. A high voltage transmission line to connect North Dakota to Illinois will cost at least $10 billion.
http://www.twincities.com/ci_11868236
Things like this have been tried in Europe, and from what I understand, it is difficult to rely on the wind. E.ON's 2005 report showed a case where 6,000 MW of capacity in Germany at one time produced 40 MW.
http://www.windaction.org/documents/461
I don't think the sun and wind will be able to generate enough reliable energy to get 25% of our electricity from them. I am a big fan of nuclear energy, I wish we would have a lot more of it. This may be the only time where I think "why can't we be like France?" where they get 87% of their electricity from nuclear.
pancakeman
19-03-2009, 20:47
I have heard amazing things about tidal energy, they have very low operating cost and take little power to run, but they work constantly. I did a research paper on it not too long ago, but I seem to have lost that particular file. I believe, and don't quote me on this, that the efficiency of tidal is around 80%, which means that it utilizes 80% of the potential energy of the water. The efficiency of nuclear is ~40%, and solar is less than 10%.
It doesn't produce as much energy as a nuclear plant, but it doesn't have most of the ruin-your-**** problems a nuclear plant can have. Best of all, any city with access to a large body of water, preferably with strong tides, could potentially have a plant. The amount of wattage would vary, but at least it would be a clean source, which is a start.
AeroJonesy
19-03-2009, 22:44
The answer definitely should involve nuclear. Possibly clean coal, too, but I don't know enough about it to say for sure. I've heard that it's the best thing ever and that it's the worst thing ever.
Stoutwood
19-03-2009, 22:46
Nuclear power is the answer. It always has been the answer. But that would cut into the oil lobby's profits and the ignorant and reactionary people are more than willing to help them.
WildBerry
20-03-2009, 04:40
Nuclear power is the answer. It always has been the answer. But that would cut into the oil lobby's profits and the ignorant and reactionary people are more than willing to help them.
I'm not entirely sold to it being a definitive answer, but you're right, the grounds on which it is opposed are funny - as if using oil didn't cause environmental damage.
The main issue with nuclear is the waste disposal. The sediments that are sedentive enough to safely harbour that junk without it seeping to ground water or anything are not very common. Our country has a very firm base rock, but the places still are far and few between. I assume that with the size of the U.S. this is somewhat less of a problem, though.
Just store the nuclear waste topside til we can launch it into space and then do that.
I'm not entirely sold to it being a definitive answer, but you're right, the grounds on which it is opposed are funny - as if using oil didn't cause environmental damage.
The main issue with nuclear is the waste disposal. The sediments that are sedentive enough to safely harbour that junk without it seeping to ground water or anything are not very common. Our country has a very firm base rock, but the places still are far and few between. I assume that with the size of the U.S. this is somewhat less of a problem, though.
My brother was studying to be a nuclear engineer in the navy till he pissed off an admiral and he told me that waste disposal becomes a non-problem if you reprocess your spent fuel. He said that the reason we don't is because the same facilities can be used to produce weapons grade fissionable material and we want other countries to follow our example in not reprocessing waste so we can be sure they aren't producing weapons.
I'll see if I can find some support later when I've had more than two consecutive hours of sleep in a twenty-four hour period.
WildBerry
20-03-2009, 12:03
My brother was studying to be a nuclear engineer in the navy till he pissed off an admiral and he told me that waste disposal becomes a non-problem if you reprocess your spent fuel. He said that the reason we don't is because the same facilities can be used to produce weapons grade fissionable material and we want other countries to follow our example in not reprocessing waste so we can be sure they aren't producing weapons.
I'll see if I can find some support later when I've had more than two consecutive hours of sleep in a twenty-four hour period.
The waste isn't entirely a non-issue, but it is pronouncedly less so - while the left-overs still aren't non-toxic, you don't have to look forward for several tens of thousands of years when looking where to dump it..
What you say of the political reasons behind little reprocessing is probably true, though. If you have something on that, it'd make for an interesting read, I'll be waiting for your post.
Well I couldn't find a source that didn't looked terribly biased, but two sites that were clearly against reprocessing sited the nuclear weapon problem and Bush apparently was trying to start a reprocessing program that would have other countries sending us their waste to be reprocessed. Apparently France, the UK, Russia and Japan reprocess their fuel. The opposition sites claim that there would still be high level waste, but another site claims that reactor fuel is no longer useful when it becomes 1% contaminated with reaction by-products, so if we could recover all the actual fuel it sounds like we'd reduce the radioactive waste by 99%.
I dunno. This is one of those topics on which it's difficult to find sources that are not biased and know what they're talking about.
Nazdakka
20-03-2009, 18:51
Nuclear power. It's well understood technology, deployable right now, and waste problem is a surmountable engineering challenge, not a fundamental problem.
Unless they can make carbon capture work, 'clean coal' is PR speak for 'slightly less filthy coal'. The renewables aren't ready for the big time yet, and neither oil nor gas are long-term feasable for much the same reasons as coal.
i agree that renewable energy is bs. Too expensive, too unstable. Its a nice dream but its far too naive.
Nuclear may be the way to go.
BUT. Im not so sure nuclear fuel isnt gonna run out soon too. Even at todays consumption rates!
Anybody has numbers on uranium left on earth?
Stoutwood
20-03-2009, 23:18
I'm not entirely sold to it being a definitive answer, but you're right, the grounds on which it is opposed are funny - as if using oil didn't cause environmental damage.
The main issue with nuclear is the waste disposal. The sediments that are sedentive enough to safely harbour that junk without it seeping to ground water or anything are not very common. Our country has a very firm base rock, but the places still are far and few between. I assume that with the size of the U.S. this is somewhat less of a problem, though.
The waste disposal could be less of an issue than it is, if more fast reactors were built so the fuel could be reprocessed. A 30 year half life or less for the resulting waste wouldn't be very worrisome at all. At any rate, at least the waste from nuclear plants is small and solid, where we can keep an eye on it, as opposed to released into the air.
EDIT: Galabab, some of the fast reactors make new fuel faster than they use it up. But fission would just have to last until engineering advances enough to get a fusion plant online. Furthermore, even the regular light water reactors don't use fuel very quickly. The United States just started mining Uranium again after 50 years of using what was stored in warehouses.
One of the articles I found quoted some scientist as saying that if we reprocessed our fuel we wouldn't need to mine anymore uranium for about 400 years.
Stoutwood
21-03-2009, 03:25
Oh yeah, you were right about the politics stopping fast reactors. Apparently because they produce plutonium and actually have a possibility of melting down, there aren't many of them worldwide. Ironically, every nuclear weapons program to date has used some form of thermal reactor for plutonium production. Thank you wikipedia.
Anyone else think that given that the energy crisis is based on running out of a non-renewable resources (Fossil Fuels) switching to a higher energy but lower available source with higher cost & longer pollution and still non-renewable resource (Uranium) is not the way to go?
Not to mention those sources are better used for times you need a small high power source in a wide open space that the pollution does not matter in (space exploration threads anyone?)
IMHO We need to find better ways to use the Large, Long Term, Steady Sources. Tides, Wind, Solar, Geothermal, Gravity etc.
So far the only one we have is a less reliable combo called Hydro-Electric.
lAmebAdger
21-03-2009, 04:14
up and coming! (not really, but at least we're trying with a bit of effort, if you look at Japan, Germany, Island,...)
Australia has THE biggest hopes for turning into such a renewables supported country:
geothermal sources aplenty (even natural uranium decay may heat up water for an unimaginable amount of time for them)
wind aplenty
area and sun light aplenty
sparce population per hectar...
this country is wasting its potential, currently...
WildBerry
21-03-2009, 04:28
IMHO We need to find better ways to use the Large, Long Term, Steady Sources. Tides, Wind, Solar, Geothermal, Gravity etc.
So far the only one we have is a less reliable combo called Hydro-Electric.
Huh? Hydro-electric is one of the most reliable, not to mention that it has probably the lowest turn-off-turn-on -costs, so it's best for working with electricity use peaks (just make that dam churn more when people come home from the work). The issue is that both the output AND the potential for growth are limited.
But even with the associated problem, hydroelectric dams have good things going for them, even if they are by all means incapable of solving the growth issue.
I'm pointing out the only source we have made good use of is dependent on rainfall (solar) and gravity not to mention it is also the water supply and the need to distribute if in different ranges for use as power and water leads to conflicts.
I agree it should be a source just not the last renewable one to be developed.
Oh yeah, you were right about the politics stopping fast reactors. Apparently because they produce plutonium and actually have a possibility of melting down, there aren't many of them worldwide. Ironically, every nuclear weapons program to date has used some form of thermal reactor for plutonium production. Thank you wikipedia.
Thank you for pointing out the one good reason to use it all up now.
Stoutwood
21-03-2009, 08:17
Anyone else think that given that the energy crisis is based on running out of a non-renewable resources (Fossil Fuels) switching to a higher energy but lower available source with higher cost & longer pollution and still non-renewable resource (Uranium) is not the way to go?
But it is renewable to some extent in breeder reactors. You also overestimate how quickly we will use up the Uranium on Earth. Finally, the pollution would actually last less than the hydrocarbons we spew into the air if people would let us break down the long-lived isotopes like we should be doing.
Not to mention those sources are better used for times you need a small high power source in a wide open space that the pollution does not matter in (space exploration threads anyone?)
Hopefully by the time that becomes an issue we will have made a feasible fusion plant.
stillman
21-03-2009, 13:53
I think the tidal energy is the best idea...however, people are too afraid to dump giant structures into the ocean. We can blame the fishermen for this, since they've raped the oceans and have taken every last large fish out there. So much has been taken, that the thought of anything new coming anywhere near the ocean frightens people. I say put in the tidal generators and stop the fishing industries.
There aren't going to be any real fish left in 20 years (imo) anyway, so why not end the fisheries right now and get it over with? Move it all to land (grow the fish in aquariums on land for human consumption).
Nuclear is a stop-gap at best. I wouldn't even want to consider it for that, the geopolitical implications are dire. If we go nuclear then everyone will, love to see what the world will be like when hundreds of nuclear reactors are run like Chinese coal plants. We'd better work hard to make renewable, clean sources cheap fast.
As long as the governments decide the energy policies, it will be suboptimal, as is any planned economic sector. No incentives to be effective for the bureaucrats leads to no effectiveness. No possibility to gauge the effectiveness of bureaucrats due to lack of market feedback means no possibility to find a solution to ineffective services other than privatization.
I'd like to see the private sector build a nuclear power plant. First thing they would be doing is going to uncle Sam and demand money.
Anyone else think that given that the energy crisis is based on running out of a non-renewable resources (Fossil Fuels) switching to a higher energy but lower available source with higher cost & longer pollution and still non-renewable resource (Uranium) is not the way to go?
non-renewable? Yes
lower available? No, you have to consider kW output total that is available.
higher cost? Hell no dude! Nuclear is one of the cheapest!
(and this will be believe me or not the dicisive factor in the long run after fossils run out)
Longer polution? If you build a storehouse there is none.
I think the tidal energy is the best idea...however, people are too afraid to dump giant structures into the ocean.
Thats what i thought too! And windmills in the sea too.
BUT unfortunatly there is a small little problem. Very small problem but still without a feasible solution:
Salt in the water. It accululates on moving parts and everything stops working.
I'd like to see the private sector build a nuclear power plant. First thing they would be doing is going to uncle Sam and demand money.yes at first the privatization of any economic sector brings problems and big challenges, it takes time for a stable market to form, but the benefits are always big enough to be worth it, the only problem is lack of incentive from the part of politicians due to such choices decreasing their power.
Hah you think that just because it's private it's automaticly more efficient?
Those calls are made on a case by case basis.
Hard to compete with energy, I mean you can't just switch providers by signing a different contract and picking up a SIM card. Unless you want to build a hundred independent power grids over a country.
WildBerry
23-03-2009, 13:15
Hard to compete with energy, I mean you can't just switch providers by signing a different contract and picking up a SIM card. Unless you want to build a hundred independent power grids over a country.
They don't bill power transfers and power production separately for you? Well that's kind of bad.
A single grid (or even just a few) will do somewhat of a price floor because it belongs to someone. It doesn't mean that companies don't get other companies' power to their grids, though.
We have multiple providers of energy but there's only one grid. You don't change the exact electrons you're getting, just contracts.
WildBerry
24-03-2009, 13:32
We have multiple providers of energy but there's only one grid. You don't change the exact electrons you're getting, just contracts.
But separate providers each own parts of the grid, yes?
Hah you think that just because it's private it's automaticly more efficient?
Those calls are made on a case by case basis.when there is no incentive to do something, people dont do it. No profit incentive in case of government companies due to them not being owned by anyone but rather people working for the "common good"(gotta love those socialist phrases). And due to government monopolies not having market feedback, there are no methods of accurately determining whether a bureaucrat and the company itself does his job well or not, as profit is ensured anyway by taxation. Im sure you have witnessed the carelessness and negligence of government institutions. That is unfortunately inevitable as long as a coercive monopoly exists.
when there is no incentive to do something, people dont do it. No profit incentive in case of government companies due to them not being owned by anyone but rather people working for the "common good"(gotta love those socialist phrases). And due to government monopolies not having market feedback, there are no methods of accurately determining whether a bureaucrat and the company itself does his job well or not, as profit is ensured anyway by taxation. Im sure you have witnessed the carelessness and negligence of government institutions. That is unfortunately inevitable as long as a coercive monopoly exists.
Private and public companies compete all the time on the electricity market and the government has no problem keeping up. Soldiers, firemen and police constantly work for the sake of the common good with no regard for profit. It's not so far fetched that a lot of pencil pushers in the government do it as well.
Private and public companies compete all the time on the electricity market and the government has no problem keeping up. Soldiers, firemen and police constantly work for the sake of the common good with no regard for profit. It's not so far fetched that a lot of pencil pushers in the government do it as well.except that private companies get all the fun of paying for the goverment companies with their own profit(through taxes)! and public companies can spend all they want since daddy goverment will help out if they get in trouble or make bad bets.
my point is: its not really fair if people(and the companies themselves) dont have a choice of paying or not paying for one of the competitors.
Fair and fair. It's about providing the people with electricity not milking the people for as much money as possible for as little effort as possible.
If you want to play a fair game then sell ball-bearings or cars.
Fair and fair. It's about providing the people with electricity not milking the people for as much money as possible for as little effort as possible.
If you want to play a fair game then sell ball-bearings or cars.
i understand your skepticism on privatization of elementary services and products, but in terms of prices
private ownership tends to do the opposite: lower the prices(except in the case of precious minerals whose price can be bossed by a cartel or monopoly, which is not necessarily bad due to higher prices leading to conservation of resources for future generations) due to competition. or in the lack of competition in a free market, they must obviously doing such a good job that its not worthwhile for new companies to enter the market. the horror stories of private monopolies tyrannizing the people are largely rooted in them being subsidised by governments, through PPPs, a degree of nationalisation or legal state aid(central banks for example, which are also the root of our financial mess) In general public services are twice as expensive as private counterparts(david friedman has written interesting stuff on that), and break the principles of libertly and are essentially legalized robbery by uncle sam, even if he promises to use the money well.
david friedman
In his 1973 book The Machinery of Freedom, Friedman developed a form of anarcho-capitalism where all goods and services including law itself can be produced by the free market. This differs from the version proposed by Murray Rothbard, where a legal code would first be consented to by the parties involved in setting up the anarcho-capitalist society. Friedman advocates an incrementalist approach to achieve anarcho-capitalism by gradual privatization of areas that government is involved in, ultimately privatizing law and order itself.
Private law enforcement. I'm sure that wont go to hell at all.
private ownership tends to do the opposite: lower the prices(except in the case of precious minerals whose price can be bossed by a cartel or monopoly, which is not necessarily bad due to higher prices leading to conservation of resources for future generations) due to competition.
I'm a bit hazy on the details, but wasn't Enron faking demand for energy to artificially inflate the prices in a rather deregulated market? And with things like Oil and other fossil fuels - the usage was higher when the price was at $140+ than it is now, I don't think that it cuts demand all that much when people feel they *need* the product.
or in the lack of competition in a free market, they must obviously doing such a good job that its not worthwhile for new companies to enter the market.
Or entry costs are prohibitively high and make any potential competitor uncompetitive due to high start up costs. E.g. - try buying up land and constructing a new railway to compete with an existing one. If the guy who built the existing railway also built the existing highway too then you're SOL if you plan to use transportation by road to avoid the high cost of transportation by rail. And good luck buying up land and constructing a road that will be competitive with either the existing road or rail systems.
You also sound rather fanatical - Private cartels are a force for good as they lead to resources being conserved, but government services provided at the same cost are bad because they are overpriced. Likewise no competition is apparently a good sign (except is does not explain how competition is providing you with a cheaper product...) unless it's the government. It looks like you're ready to excuse just about anything by the private sector regardless of which way they go - ruthless competition = good, no competition = good, cartels price fixing = good. WTF?
In general public services are twice as expensive as private counterparts(david friedman has written interesting stuff on that.
With the notable exception of largely private medical systems, though the more enthusiastic on here seem to argue that the higher cost of privatized medicine is a good thing because it apparently subsidizes the rest of the world to buy drugs at a fraction of the cost it costs American citizens, rather than being a sign that the good folks in the US are being ripped off. And ignoring that if the drug companies are actually making money then the 'real' market cost would have to be more or less what the drugs are sold for in the ROTW anyway.
Private and public companies compete all the time on the electricity market and the government has no problem keeping up. Soldiers, firemen and police constantly work for the sake of the common good with no regard for profit. It's not so far fetched that a lot of pencil pushers in the government do it as well.
E.g. A few years ago a friend of mine quit the private sector to work in the public sector doing essentially the same job and working about the same hours. She took a 30% pay cut in doing so - AFAIK she hasn't cut her productivity by 30% - hence she is providing more efficient work for the government than she was for her employer in the private sector.
I'm a bit hazy on the details, but wasn't Enron faking demand for energy to artificially inflate the prices in a rather deregulated market? And with things like Oil and other fossil fuels - the usage was higher when the price was at $140+ than it is now, I don't think that it cuts demand all that much when people feel they *need* the product.
Or entry costs are prohibitively high and make any potential competitor uncompetitive due to high start up costs. E.g. - try buying up land and constructing a new railway to compete with an existing one. If the guy who built the existing railway also built the existing highway too then you're SOL if you plan to use transportation by road to avoid the high cost of transportation by rail. And good luck buying up land and constructing a road that will be competitive with either the existing road or rail systems.
You also sound rather fanatical - Private cartels are a force for good as they lead to resources being conserved, but government services provided at the same cost are bad because they are overpriced. Likewise no competition is apparently a good sign (except is does not explain how competition is providing you with a cheaper product...) unless it's the government. It looks like you're ready to excuse just about anything by the private sector regardless of which way they go - ruthless competition = good, no competition = good, cartels price fixing = good. WTF?
With the notable exception of largely private medical systems, though the more enthusiastic on here seem to argue that the higher cost of privatized medicine is a good thing because it apparently subsidizes the rest of the world to buy drugs at a fraction of the cost it costs American citizens, rather than being a sign that the good folks in the US are being ripped off. And ignoring that if the drug companies are actually making money then the 'real' market cost would have to be more or less what the drugs are sold for in the ROTW anyway.
E.g. A few years ago a friend of mine quit the public sector to work in the private sector doing essentially the same job and working about the same hours. She took a 30% pay cut in doing so - AFAIK she hasn't cut her productivity by 30% - hence she is providing more efficient work for the government than she was for her employer in the private sector.
there are less efficient companies in the free market, not everything is perfect. but the market sorts it out and prevents this kind of behaviour from being widespread, unlike governments.
on entry costs: its rather an issue of the company in control of a large amount of infrastructure producing losses if he asks for rates above the optimal: people will take other routes, roads instead of railway, a slightly longer route or whatever. not a big loss for the customer, but a big loss for the infrastructure operator that operates the expensive road that loses a lot of traffic and thus money if he asks more than the competitors, needs to be repaired and kept up to date. also, when a company attempts to buy everything(corner the market) then he faces ever increasing prices for buying the remaining structure due to opposition realising that their infrastructure, as one of the few alternatives, has a big value if it operates more cheaply than the big company, and diminishing returns from his own new capital as it becomes more poorly managed due to increasing bureaucracy within his ever growing firm and thus less competitive services.
So called "privatizations" of railroads during recent years, have still been very regulated. You cannot build a railroad in for example the UK without detailed permissions from the government, so competition isvery restricted. Mostly, such "privatizations" is only for certain operationas services, while the government keeps its monopoly of buying railroad services (to guarantee traffic also in the unprofitable wilderness). The construction of power plants, especially of the most cost efficient kinds, hydroelectrical and nuclear, is not allowedin most countries. How free is a market when supply is restricted like that? Not strange that prices soar.
Free markets invented electricity and railroads, and ran them perfectly until these industries were nationalized all over the world in the 1930s or during or after WW2. Since then, the same industries have stagnated with soaring costs and lowered quality.
When the price of oil really starts to roar(500$?), believe me, people will use less. Not pleasant, but better than the alternative of shortages in the case of government control. I dunno anything about Enron, cant help you there
Btw try to avoid using ad hominem arguments, theyre pointless.
there are less efficient companies in the free market, not everything is perfect. but the market sorts it out and prevents this kind of behaviour from being widespread, unlike governments.
So cartels controlling things like Oil will just sort themselves out?
on entry costs: its rather an issue of the company in control of a large amount of infrastructure producing losses if he asks for rates above the optimal: people will take other routes, roads instead of railway, a slightly longer route or whatever. not a big loss for the customer, but a big loss for the infrastructure operator that operates the expensive road that loses a lot of traffic and thus money if he asks more than the competitors, needs to be repaired and kept up to date.
Except that there is often not a suitable alternative route, or the alternative route will take much longer. If the customer is lucky enough to be in the position that there is a vaguely efficient alternative route owned by a third party then there will be some competition (unless the road and rail owners get together over a game of golf) but otherwise...
also, when a company attempts to buy everything(corner the market) then he faces ever increasing prices for buying the remaining structure due to opposition realising that their infrastructure, as one of the few alternatives, has a big value if it operates more cheaply than the big company, and diminishing returns from his own new capital as it becomes more poorly managed due to increasing bureaucracy within his ever growing firm and thus less competitive services.
This would imply that the most successful companies, which grow to be the largest are also poorly managed and derive no benefits from economy of scale. It also assumes a highly aware group of landowners who all act in a common interest...
You cannot build a railroad in for example the UK without detailed permissions from the government, so competition isvery restricted.
Not to mention that the cost of buying the land and constructing the rail would make it impossible for you to run the company at a profit when competing against someone who does not face those overheads as they obtained the land a long time ago and does not need to take out a loan to construct new tracks.
Free markets invented electricity
That is a bit of a stretch...
Btw try to avoid using ad hominem arguments, theyre pointless.
How was it AdHom? You're arguing that:
Compeition in the Free Market is Good
but
Lack of Competition in the Free Market is a good sign
The free Market leads to lower prices which is good
but
When cartels artificially raise prices that is also good
Lack of competition implies the existing company is doing a good job
but
A single company that corners the market will be a bureaucratic mess
It really does seem that no matter which way the 'free market' goes it's good. Low prices in a free market = good, artificially inflated prices in a free market = good?!? It does come across as a fanatical viewpoint.
SaroDarksbane
24-03-2009, 21:42
Soldiers, firemen and police constantly work for the sake of the common good with no regard for profit.
Soldiers and police officers don't get paid over there?
Yikes.
They get paid but they're not doing it for the pay and you knew that I meant that.
SaroDarksbane
24-03-2009, 23:45
They get paid but they're not doing it for the pay and you knew that I meant that.
And where are you pulling that data from (as if I don't already know the answer)?
My dad's a cop. He joined because it was a job in his skillset (he was in the military previously and had limited marketable skills for the private sector when he retired).
I have a friend who worked as a CNA. She did it because she thought it would help her get a job/entrance into a master's program for health sciences when she graduated from college.
I have a friend who went into the army because it was a steady paycheck after he dropped out of high school and got his GED.
Just because it's a crummy, thankless job doesn't mean they aren't doing it "for profit".
KillerAim
25-03-2009, 06:58
Johnny:
They get paid but they're not doing it for the pay and you knew that I meant that.
Very few people, including yourself I bet, work just for the pay. Compensation comes in many forms: self esteem, an easy workload, enjoyable work, prestige, no pressure, days off, etc. Are you saying that you would quit your job for one where you loathed every minute of work if that job paid you $1 more an hour?
Add "Sense of Authority" into the above for this job position I KNOW that's the only reason a lot of Police are in the job.
Just because it's a crummy, thankless job doesn't mean they aren't doing it "for profit".
Are you pretending to be module or what? Do we have to make this take 7 pages before you realise that although the market is driven by money. In a lot of jobs like in the military, police and fire department people are driven by other factors than the hunt for profit. That's why people are willing to risk their lives every day when all they get in material return is **** pay when compared to the job they do.
But separate providers each own parts of the grid, yes?
No, and why would that help? You'd have to move to change provider.
No, and why would that help? You'd have to move to change provider.
Obviously in a Free Market system if they are not providing a competitive service another company will build a parallel grid...
And if there's no room to build one then it's because spacetime is being uncompetitive so naturally a rival spacetime will be set up that has plenty of extra dimensions for an enterprising power company to build into.
KillerAim
26-03-2009, 04:49
Johnny:
Do we have to make this take 7 pages before you realise that although the market is driven by money. In a lot of jobs like in the military, police and fire department people are driven by other factors than the hunt for profit.
Actually, the Market is driven by desires and needs and money is just a means to quantify desires or needs so that they can be valued against each other on a common scale.
I was a cop for two years and I've known many both as friends and relatives. I agree that its doubtful that many people become policemen just for the money, but the same can be said about a lot of other professions. Being a 9-to-5 desk jockey would drive many cops crazy; they love the idea that each day on job is different.
Depends what you mean by "for the money". I mean, there's "for the money" as in it's a sweet job with a pile of cash (clearly not the reason anyone becomes a cop) and then there's "for the money" as in you can't get anything else and you need to put bread on the table for your family.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.