12-17-2009, 09:04 PM
I've just spent the last week in Silicon Valley. Right in the heart of it. I've seen tons of volkswagens, audis, bmws, acuras, and toyotas. I haven't seen any hybrids, at the same time, American made is as rare as white people. It's weird. In Phoenix you can't drive a mile without seeing a hybrid. Around here, there's probably 1 white person for every 9 asian/latinos and while there might be fuel efficiency in those vehicles they aren't alternatively fueled.
I'm making an assumption that most of the people around here are first or second generation immigrants (based on skin color and the fact they all speak with accents) but they don't seem to care about alternative fuels. IMO it comes down to convenience and cost, as it does for most of us in the USA, and gas is still the cheapest. Not sure where I'm going with this but it seems to me that 'green' is still a luxury in terms of cost so I think we'll develop fossil and nuclear at a faster pace than green tech (without fed intervention) as an energy source because they are tried, true, and cheaper.
The future of energy is complex, but let's face it, it's all about cost for most people. Any ideals you might have about the future of energy, the short term drive is cost and paying more for cleaner fuel is a luxury. We had a pyramid in another thread of how to quantify value (redundant I know) and cleanliness was never mentioned, but health was.
So...here is my prediction.
Fossil fuels are unhealthy. Close the garage door and leave the car running or suck on a pipe connected to a coal power plant chimney and see what happens. That's a cost. It's expensive to keep a sick person healthy.
Right now we hide the true cost of fossil and nuclear fuel development because the cost is not just what you pay at the pump, we also pay in health. We don't see it yet in most places because fuel is extracted in remote locations and the impacts of pollution on human physiology is vastly understudied. Even if it were well-studied, our health care system is currently set up to benefit from a sick population. There's money to be made on both sides of the equation, sell people things that make them sick and then charge them for the cure.
The problem with pollution is that in people it usually takes the form of cancer and genetic mutation; cancers and mutations that don't show up until you have a baby or until you're 85 because they're invisible to the naked eye, complex in how they poison you, and so slow acting that they're like that double punch the monk assassin can do in D&D that creates heart arrhythmia and kills the victim days after the monk has left the keep and traveled the road to the next town.
What will gas prices do next year? Get a biopsy on your prostate. Hah. So the jist is this. Go with fossil fuels as your energy source and investment until one of two things happens. 1) China and Japan ramp up their government subsidized green industries to the point where they can sell 'green' for cheaper than we can buy fossils or 2) research in health sciences proves indubitably that fossil fuel emissions are as unhealthy for you as cigarette smoke and there is money to be made from the law suits. That's the sign you are looking for. When studies start to come out that burning fossil fuels causes cancer and we can make money off of it through litigation then it's time to buy some photovoltaic stock.
Just remember. Economies respond far more to making money than saving it (no where in the GDP does saving come into play). So if you have a choice between an industry that is making money vs one that is saving money choose the one that is making money. Fossils fuels in the short term, imo. If you bet on human ingenuity go with alternative energy in the long term. If you bet on human idiocy, stay with fossil fuels in the long term. The choice be yours.
I'm making an assumption that most of the people around here are first or second generation immigrants (based on skin color and the fact they all speak with accents) but they don't seem to care about alternative fuels. IMO it comes down to convenience and cost, as it does for most of us in the USA, and gas is still the cheapest. Not sure where I'm going with this but it seems to me that 'green' is still a luxury in terms of cost so I think we'll develop fossil and nuclear at a faster pace than green tech (without fed intervention) as an energy source because they are tried, true, and cheaper.
The future of energy is complex, but let's face it, it's all about cost for most people. Any ideals you might have about the future of energy, the short term drive is cost and paying more for cleaner fuel is a luxury. We had a pyramid in another thread of how to quantify value (redundant I know) and cleanliness was never mentioned, but health was.
So...here is my prediction.
Fossil fuels are unhealthy. Close the garage door and leave the car running or suck on a pipe connected to a coal power plant chimney and see what happens. That's a cost. It's expensive to keep a sick person healthy.
Right now we hide the true cost of fossil and nuclear fuel development because the cost is not just what you pay at the pump, we also pay in health. We don't see it yet in most places because fuel is extracted in remote locations and the impacts of pollution on human physiology is vastly understudied. Even if it were well-studied, our health care system is currently set up to benefit from a sick population. There's money to be made on both sides of the equation, sell people things that make them sick and then charge them for the cure.
The problem with pollution is that in people it usually takes the form of cancer and genetic mutation; cancers and mutations that don't show up until you have a baby or until you're 85 because they're invisible to the naked eye, complex in how they poison you, and so slow acting that they're like that double punch the monk assassin can do in D&D that creates heart arrhythmia and kills the victim days after the monk has left the keep and traveled the road to the next town.
What will gas prices do next year? Get a biopsy on your prostate. Hah. So the jist is this. Go with fossil fuels as your energy source and investment until one of two things happens. 1) China and Japan ramp up their government subsidized green industries to the point where they can sell 'green' for cheaper than we can buy fossils or 2) research in health sciences proves indubitably that fossil fuel emissions are as unhealthy for you as cigarette smoke and there is money to be made from the law suits. That's the sign you are looking for. When studies start to come out that burning fossil fuels causes cancer and we can make money off of it through litigation then it's time to buy some photovoltaic stock.
Just remember. Economies respond far more to making money than saving it (no where in the GDP does saving come into play). So if you have a choice between an industry that is making money vs one that is saving money choose the one that is making money. Fossils fuels in the short term, imo. If you bet on human ingenuity go with alternative energy in the long term. If you bet on human idiocy, stay with fossil fuels in the long term. The choice be yours.
Caveatum & Blhurr D'Vizhun.
![[Image: glarebear_av.gif]](http://thepurge.net/turnip/glarebear_av.gif)
![[Image: sterb037.gif]](http://www.getsmileyface.com/sm/violent/sterb037.gif)
![[Image: IA_grph.jpg]](http://www.fuelgaugereport.com/images/IA_grph.jpg)
![[Image: maull2.gif]](http://bengtel.com/maull2.gif)
