Norway to Build the World’s Largest Wind Turbine

[Leif]

How do I, as an individual consumer, choose to use nuclear power in the free market?

It's not like there's a switch inside everyone's house that lists the current kWh rates for all the varied methods of electricity production, and they just get to pick what they want to power their apartment.

Thanks to Democrats, consumers don't have the power to demand the cheapest energy. Thanks, Democrats!

But my if you're going to make that argument, then the natural solution to your problem is to create a free market.

[Jaybar]

If it truly is in the interest of society to switch to solar panels, windmills, and hamster wheels to power our cities, won't we naturally be forced to switch to these other sources?

They are supposed to work in tandem with the dirty industry, not take it over. I'm sure you would love to pay less in energy bills.

[Leif]

They are supposed to work in tandem with the dirty industry, not take it over. I'm sure you would love to pay less in energy bills.

Absolutely. However, the free market naturally provides the best energy. If you allow the free market to operate and producers start operating "green" on their own, then it is the best energy source.

The idea that your poor judgment can decide what's best for 300 million people is preposterous. The only body that knows what's best for 300 million is those 300 million people, and that is exactly what the free market allows.

This is how the free market works. It is absolutely preposterous how many people do not understand the free market, how it works, how it operates, and how it produces the most goods as efficiently as possible.

If green is good, all of those rich, greedy, money-seeking corporations would be actively perusing it in a free market.

[Cantih]

Hmm, this just popped up on Fark today
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...n6221135.shtml

It's a bit light on details, but the interesting bit is it's already in test runs on site.

From the farkers trying to figure it out:
( http://www.fark.com/cgi/comments.pl?IDLink=5047788 if you wish to dredge )

It's a fuel cell, but one that uses less rare components and can use a wider range of fuels, including renewable ones. Is re-purposed from NASA tech, so should be respectably efficient. And due to size/portability, can be placed in ways such as to reduce transmission loss.

BG thoughts?

[Feedmenow]

If green is good, all of those rich, greedy, money-seeking corporations would be actively perusing it in a free market.

Four units have been powering a Google datacenter for 18 months. They use natural gas, but half as much as would be required for a traditional power plant.

Looks like they already are.

Can't wait to see how these boxes work out.

[Cantih]

Looks like they already are.

No, it's based on NASA tech, publicly funded research, so Leif has to decry it.

[MoogleAura]

I wonder how noisy this is going to be? There are a number of wind turbines on the coast back home. Apparently some residents claim that they make a lot of noise, but I've never been close enough to one to see how much noise they actually make. =/

[Takedown3]

lief is back from banification thats too bad. you need to break the mold to go forward ol'chum

[bigrougabagel]

The one thing that hasnt been mentioned about wind turbines effects on the environment is their disruption of weather patterns. I dont know if its feasible that even a massive array of turbines could absorb enough wind energy to affect climate. They are taking some of the force out of the push of the wind, im just not sure if it would be enough to change climates. Likely not, but i dont recall reading if that has been tested.

[Mojo]

It would take quite a bit to convince me of any sort of fuel cell being more efficient than what we already have. The types of fuels that these cells rely on do not occur naturally, they have to be manufactured. The energy that is used to create this fuel doesn't just come out of nowhere, it comes from coal (thus they aren't really green in any way.) So what you have is coal plants generating electricity that could just be put right into homes but is instead used to create fuel for fuel cells. Energy is lost in this process. The fuel then has to be transported to said bloom boxes. Energy is also lost in this process as well. The question is, is the energy lost in these processes lower than the energy lost to resistance (estimated at around 7.2%) in pushing electricity through power lines? We'll see.

[Leif]

Looks like they already are.

Can't wait to see how these boxes work out.

That's the point. If they pursue it naturally without tax incentives, then I'm all for it. But it is not a debate the public needs to have. It's a decision that companies make. They know what's best for them. Not coincidentally, what's best for them is usually best for society. The sole exception would be if they were building nuclear weapons to destroy America.

[Leif]

But what if consumers demanded nuclear weapons to destroy America?

Nuclear weapons, I'm sure, are outlawed. So, no, consumers could not buy nuclear weapons.

[Leif]

Sounds like liberal holding down of the second amendment.

I don't want the next liberal who tries to kill a president, shoot up an army base, or shoot up a college campus to do it with a nuclear weapon.

Boy, what a liberal position to take!

[archibaldcrane]

As long as you're willing to compromise on your conservative values to do what's right, you're ok in my book Leif.

[Leif]

As long as you're willing to compromise on your conservative values to do what's right, you're ok in my book Leif.

The world isn't black and white. We have to deal with what we've got. When liberals and conservatives agree on what is insane, we can settle the issue.

This is one such issue.

[Kerberoz]

The world isn't black and white.

nah, it's red and blue, right?

[Olo401]

The world isn't black and white.

Congratulations.. admitting that you don't believe in absolutes.. you've taken the first step away from the insanity that is Republicanism.

[archibaldcrane]

The world isn't black and white. We have to deal with what we've got. When liberals and conservatives agree on what is insane, we can settle the issue.

This is one such issue.

Ok, let's take it one step further - we're in a thread about energy production. You advocate a "true free market" for optimization of electricity delivery/price/etc. I assume you are not an advocate for regulation in this market - since that wouldn't make it particularly free, right?

What government-imposed restrictions should be placed on, say, an power company that wants to build a new nuclear power plant? I mean, the instant you are putting restrictions of any sort (waste disposal, radioactive fuel acquisition and transportation, etc.) on them you are hurting their ability to deliver their product at the most market-competitive price, and that's pretty anti-free market.

Or should they be allowed to pollute freely and make the facility as unsecure as they like, but if people don't like their pollution or the potential danger they create from having improperly secured radioactive materials they shouldn't buy their electricity? Is that your free market model?

Serious question, this is an energy thread afterall.

[Leif]

Ok, let's take it one step further - we're in a thread about energy production. You advocate a "true free market" for optimization of electricity delivery/price/etc. I assume you are not an advocate for regulation in this market - since that wouldn't make it particularly free, right?

I believe the free market generally promotes efficiency. I also believe that the well-being of the population should be protected and defended by the government. This leads into your next question:

What government-imposed restrictions should be placed on, say, an power company that wants to build a new nuclear power plant? I mean, the instant you are putting restrictions of any sort (waste disposal, radioactive fuel acquisition and transportation, etc.) on them you are hurting their ability to deliver their product at the most market-competitive price, and that's pretty anti-free market.

While I never like to make exceptions to broad and decisive rules (such as "the free market will stay free"), I am not arguing that there is a time when intervention is needed to combat externalities. Misuse of nuclear energy has the potential to cause mass destruction. Criminal punishment does not serve as an effective deterrent to such criminal activity. As such, I believe it is justified for the government to jump in to prevent that activity before it occurs.

Or should they be allowed to pollute freely and make the facility as unsecure as they like, but if people don't like their pollution or the potential danger they create from having improperly secured radioactive materials they shouldn't buy their electricity? Is that your free market model?

At the same time, it is also likely in the interest of the company to keep its facility secure, as if someone could walk in and steal nuclear materials, it would be self-regulated by the following consequences:

• Loss of valuable materials
• Loss of business opporunities
• Public outcry leading to government regulation

In this particular example, such a facility would have many factors that would influence ethical behavior that are not a result of government intervention.

The free market isn't going to determine which energy form is best for America, but it IS going to make a lot of Americans money off of the power business. Right now power is being deregulated across the country, meaning start-up companies can take advantage of the existing power grid and become a provider. People who get in on the ground floor and sign people up can stand to make a good deal of money off of it.

This is a perfect example of a lack of understanding of the free market. The largest companies with the largest amount of available capital are in the best position to utilize whichever energy source is the most efficient. This, in turn, leads to the behavior that you do describe: smaller companies taking advantage of the existing power grid.

[Leif]

If what I described is what happens, then how does it demonstrate a lack of understanding?

You claim that the small companies do whatever the big companies do and that the free market will not inspire anybody to search for better energy sources.

I claimed that the big companies have the resources to explore new technologies in the free market. Then, the behavior you described, where the small companies do whatever the big companies do, does occur. But contrary to your claim, new energy can naturally enter the system.