Road Runner

Comment Stream

Comment Stream
Filter comments by:
Highest rated Latest comments
Or filter by symbol:
  • Obama's Plan to Double Energy Production
    This comment is for those of you that think that government is much less efficient and effective than the private sector at spending money. I believe this thinking is perpetuated by the conservatives that are more interested in putting money in their pockets, via the private sector, than in caring about the overall health of the US economy.

    Look at where the private sector has spent a huge amount of money in the last 5 years. It drastically overbuild luxury homes and condos. The best thing to do with that housing to help the economy is the bulldoze it. Sure, this housing may have been efficiently build but it was not effective for the economy. Basically, money efficiently wasted. How about the 7 homes that McCain owned? How does that improve the productivity of this country and make us better competitors in the global economy? Sure the goal of owning a nice home is an incentive to work harder and smarter, but how does adding another home to a rich person’s trophy list make anyone work harder or smarter?

    The founder of the Vanguard investment group estimated that before the credit crisis, $600 billion a year was being spent on the financial industry. He was shocked and disappointed by how much of a waste that was. This is basically paying many very-smart people to figure out how to get money from other people. Not only was it money thrown away, it wasted the valuable resources of smart people. I’m not criticizing these people – making the most money a person can is not “evil”. I’m blaming a system that promotes such waste. Also, I’m not saying financing activity is a waste. Just the excess that has little to do with moving capital to where it is best used.

    There are many more examples of how the private sector wastes money without adding the incentive to work harder or smarter, especially when it is concentrated in the hands of few extremely wealthy people. I won’t “flush out” my argument against the new “robber barons” here.

    On the government spending side. Government is the only place that takes giant risks for giant potential rewords. The private sector can’t because it needs return on investment that can be calculated.

    One example is the development of basic technology at universities and research centers. The university system of the US is the envy of the world and the source of much of the wealth of this country. The developments are almost endless.

    Another example of extremely effective government spending are large scale infrastructure projects. My favorite is the Hoover dam which launched the economy of the southwest. It doesn’t matter if there were a huge number of pet pork-barrel projects that came along with the Hoover dam because the dam would have more than made up for them in economic value.

    I believe there is an optimum balance in private and public spending. Right now there is too little government spending and too much private sector spending. This has made the US a “fluffy” economy without sufficient intellectual, infrastructure, and industrial backbone for leadership in the future world economy.


    Jan 06 18:59 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • Obama's Plan to Double Energy Production
    TripleG, What do you propose the federal government do instead of borrowing and spending our way out of this problem before it becomes a deflationary death spiral? That's right - I said deflation instead of inflation. That's the first problem with your post. There is no inflation now. Actually, we are close to a deflationary down spiral. You need to learn about how a deflationary spiral works because, obviously, you don’t. If you did, it would scare the hell out of you, and you would be applauding Obama’s actions. Deflationary spirals are self-reinforcing which leads to very long (10 years plus) depressions like the Great Depression and Japan of the 90s. Only some strong outside influence breaks them like World War II.

    There is no other choice now but massive federal spending. The consumer is not going to return to strong spending because they feel much less wealthy because of falling house prices and falling stock market. Corporations are not going to return to strong spending because there is no reason to expand capacity as long as the consumer is in a coma. So that leaves the spender of last resort, the government.

    Right now the federal government can borrow massive amounts of money at extremely low interest rates because of the flight to quality in US Treasury bills and because the Federal Reserve is injecting massive amounts of money into the capital markets (it can because there is no inflation). Thus, even though the federal debt is being massively increased, it is being done at very low interest rates. Thus the taxpayer payback (interest) on this added debt is very low. Think of it like getting an extremely low rate on a large home mortgage – the payback amount may be larger but the payments are lower.
    Jan 06 17:46 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • Seven New Developments in Renewable Energy
    Thanks for the good info. It's good to see that there is still activity in wind and solar after the double punch of lower oil prices and the credit crunch.
    Jan 06 17:18 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • Obama Is Greentech's New Genie in a Bottle
    Dale Glide, I agree with you on ethanol, though I'm not keen on using nat gas for autos. I believe nat gas should replace home heating oil, electricity production, and other things using oil and coal. Autos should go to plug-in hybrid electric vehicles which would dramatically drop (like 50% plus when mature) gasoline use. The battery is here for it – read some of my other posts.

    The reason, in my opinion, for using corn for ethanol is the strong farm lobby, and the fact that the first state in the primaries is Iowa. It's a hands down (everyone with a non political brain agrees) bad idea to create ethanol from corn for autos. The net energy savings for corn-based ethanol is 20%. In other words, for every 10 gallons of ethanol produced, it takes the energy equivalent of 8 gallons of ethanol to produce that ethanol. And, it raises food prices. Dumb as dirt (sorry - I couldn’t resist).

    I hope Obama spends more on basic research for the second generation of bio-fuels that use enzymes or bacteria to break down some type of fast-growing grass into ethanol or diesel. That’s when it will make sense - the energy efficiency will be much higher than 20%.
    Jan 06 13:08 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • Obama Is Greentech's New Genie in a Bottle
    Good reading – thanks.

    BATTERIES:

    I hope there is not much money going to battery development. We already have the next generation battery that is well suited for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV), the LiFePO4 (Lithium Iron Phosphate) battery, also called LFP. It is a dramatic advancement in battery technology. It has only entered commercial production in the last 2 years. All we need is incentives to purchase PHEVs. Seems to me the companies lobbying for battery development money are the ones that missed out on this new battery technology.

    A123 Systems is a private American company that is a leader in its development. I am watching for its IPO which has been delayed due to the credit crisis. I also like BYD of China (BYDDF.PK and 1211.HK) which makes batteries and autos. I just released a PHEV using their version of the LiFePO4 battery. Warren Buffet is an investor.

    SOLAR:

    Solar is another area that does not need money for basic research and development. The technology is already there. It just needs strong demand to achieve greater cell and manufacturing efficiencies to reach grid parity. I would like to see strong incentives to put solar panels on homes, and build solar farms.

    This strong incentive could be a direct federal payment for 50% of the price of a solar system with the percentage dropping each year so people have an incentive to do it this year. Installing solar panels not only increases our energy independence (national security), and address global worming, but it makes people spend money they are sitting on (economic stimulus), and puts local US people to work installing those systems (help employment). Close to half the cost of a solar system is installation.

    Note that though many home owners are struggling because of the economy, many are just sitting on their money, putting off home improvements, because the future is unknown. Installing solar panels may look like a smart home improvement because it cuts electric bills in that unknown future.
    Jan 06 12:30 pm |Rating: +1 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • U.S. In the Midst of a Revolution
    This posting is just a whole lot of conventional wisdom hot air. We know this stuff already! You are not saying anything new. I learned nothing from your post. I don't disagree with your post, just your acting like you have such insight when there is nothing new in your post.

    This posting just reinforces people's perception that environmentalists are just a bunch of pious, elitist, know-it-all, condescending, intellectuals that have their heads in the clouds and not in the real world of day-to-day taking care of a family.

    Again. I don’t disagree with what you are saying! I just expect less high-minded ramblings and more nuts-and-bolts (more numbers and less words please), business-like (this is an investment web site, not a writing contest) to-the-point statements of the magnitude (with numbers please) of the problem, the future consequences (with numbers please) of the problem, and what needs to be done (again - with numbers) .

    I know that the average person dislikes numbers (making them avoid articles), but that is the only way to truly convince people, and bring to an end the wildly different perspectives on this problem so that we can all move together.
    Jan 06 11:32 am |Rating: +2 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • SolarWorld's Asbeck: Panel Prices to Drop 10% in 2009
    Only 10% down?! 10% is what I would expect from continued manufacturing scale and improvements. It has to be more than that considering the economy and oil prices.
    Dec 31 10:10 am |Rating: +2 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • Alternative Energy Storage: It's All About Price vs. Performance
    John Peterson says "Li-FePO4 is a wonderful and robust chemistry, production cost at the factory is in the $1,300 per kWh range in the Sandia report. "

    First, where in the Sandia report does it break out Li-FePO4 from Li-ion and say Li-FePO4 costs $1,300 per kWh? I don’t see it.

    Second, the long term price of Li-FePO4 will drop dramatically because it is a spanking new technology with strong demand. Google LiFePO4 and you will find site after site how you can upgrade Prius’, motor scooters, boats, etc to LiFePO4. One site tells how you can cannibalize many DeWalt power packs to create an electric car.

    The ultimate price, after supply catches up with demand and after the patents expire, depends on material costs, and they are very low for this battery. Don’t give me the “Lithium will be in short supply” argument either, because there are many untapped dry lake beds (like Nevada) that have good deposits of Lithium. Plus it will ultimately be extracted from the oceans.

    You can put all your lawyer spin on this all you want, but you can not give anything reasonable about the future price of LiFePO4 batteries.
    Dec 26 13:52 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • Alternative Energy Storage: It's All About Price vs. Performance
    The chart above from the "July 2008 Sandia National Laboratories report" is very disappointing because it does not break out the different types of Li-ion batteries. The material costs of a Lithium Iron Phosphate (LiFePO4 - LFP) battery (the new battery in the BYD F3DM and Chevy Volt plug-in hybrids) are much lower than the Lithium Cobalt batteries in cell phones because Cobalt is expensive. The Lithium Iron Phosphate battery also lasts 4x plus longer than the Lithium Cobalt batteries so the lifetime cost is much lower.

    This article only casually mentions the Lithium Iron Phosphate battery as a new technology with potential. Do a search on “Li-FePO4”. It is disappointing it is not included in the general analysis of the article broken-out from the Li-ion battery.

    Dec 26 12:24 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • Expert: Coal Reserve Estimates Way Too High
    Seems to me that this new estimate, if true, changes nothing. It's not going to increase the push to alternate energy because it is still a large number with decades of supply left.
    Dec 20 14:57 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • Time for America to Fire First Shot in the EV Revolution
    WZ, you are dead on, and John Petersen is dead wrong. The performance characteristics of LiFePO4 batteries are far better for electric vehicles than lead-acid batteries, and they always will be. The only disadvantage is price, but LiFePO4 batteries have only been in existence for about 3 years compared to many decades for lead-acid batteries. There will be many huge advancements in battery design, manufacturing design, manufacturing scale, etc. that will continually drop the price for many years. John says that there will be newer generation lead-acid batteries that greatly improve their performance. That's total pie-in-the-sky. If there were going to be improvements, why haven’t they been implemented already? Lead-acid batteries are a very mature product. It’s just the nature of lead-acid that limits its performance.

    Let me remind everyone of the advantages of LiFePO4:
    - 1/3 the weight of lead-acid
    - 1/2 the size of lead-acid (this is big if you, like me, don’t want to lose your trunk space to a battery)
    - very long cycle life of over 2000 cycles (the BYD F3DM advertises 4000 cycles)
    - high operating temperature range of -20C (-4F) to +60C (140F)
    - no heavy metals like lead, cobalt, manganese, etc.
    - high power output – can sustain high amperage above rating with some cycle life degradation.
    - very fast charge rate – with some cycle life degradation
    - very safe – no thermal runaway – will not damage battery or explode if overcharged
    - completely sealed so can be installed in unusual locations with unusual shapes – not like lead-acid
    - holds partial charge without energy loss
    - and many of the above stats will improve with time as the technology is very new

    Give it up John Petersen, and stop prostituting yourself for the lead-acid battery companies.
    Dec 18 16:32 pm |Rating: +2 -3 |Link to Comment |View article
  • America Must Rebuild Domestic Battery Manufacturing Infrastructure
    Don't clump all Li-ion batteries together! There are multiple types, but 2 stand out. The Lithium-Cobalt is the highest energy density and are used in cell phones. Lithium-Iron (LiFePO4) is not as high energy density but is far superior for vehicles. This is the battery in the Chevy Volt and the China-based BYD car F3DM. This is new technology just coming out of the lab. It has impressive characteristic that match well for plug-in hybrids. Keep your eye on this battery. A123 and Lithium Technology Corp make it in the US.
    Dec 17 13:30 pm |Rating: +2 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • Analyst: First Solar Reaches Grid-Parity Milestone
    Also on the subject of spin. When these articles convert the solar system fixed cost to a per unit cost like kWh to compare to eletric rates, is financing included, and at what interest rate?
    Dec 17 12:01 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • Analyst: First Solar Reaches Grid-Parity Milestone
    It's so frustrating that there is so much spin going on with the performance numbers of solar verses grid that it is painfully difficult to compare them. Every time I look at a number I have to disect the true meaning. Like installed cost - what does that include? Seems that rarely the installed cost is a true "turnkey" cost.
    Dec 17 11:58 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • Three Things Obama Will Do to Advance Alternative Energy
    Why do you think it is "clear" that Obama will install solar panels on government buildings? What I've heard from the Obama people about buildings are the many ways buildings can be made more efficient without solar panels.
    Dec 16 10:43 am |Rating: +2 0 |Link to Comment |View article

Road Runner's Comments Stream Stats

  • 135 Comments, 29 , 25
  • Total Comment Stream rating - = 4