Environmentalism May Face Major Setback in 2009 85 comments
an article to
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
By Darryl Siry
In the last two years or so, I have witnessed what I believed to be a sea change in society’s views about the environment, and particularly the acceptance of global warming by the mainstream as a critical challenge of our era.
When faced with the questions of whether this surge of popularity of “green” issues was just a fad, I confidently answered that no, this time things were different. Progressive thinking about environmental issues had penetrated the mainstream. Even President Bush acknowledged the issue in his 2007 State of the Union. A new generation of children would grow up with sustainability as the norm just as my generation grew up with computers as the norm.
But today, I fear that we may see a major setback in 2009. The combination of recession and populist notions will gain momentum, stoked by fear and hardship. These forces may be strong enough to stop the progress of environmentalism dead in its tracks.
The essential problem is the tragedy of the commons. Global warming and concern about CO2 emissions is a global, social problem that has extraordinary long term impacts, but when you look at it on an individual level, the marginal returns that a selfish individual can gain by ignoring the greater good far exceeds the marginal cost to that individual in the short run. In the long run, though, everyone pays more.
For those not familiar with this concept of Economics, an example that everyone has experienced is the group dinner where everyone agrees to split the bill. Relieved of their individual accountability to pay for only what they use, each person orders more than what they would normally order, knowing that the additional costs will be borne by the group. The individual also reasons that if they alone behave responsibly, they will not be rewarded with a lower bill but rather will still have to bear the higher cost of the average bill.
The predictable result is that the average bill is much higher than if each paid their own way. A nasty side effect is paranoia and suspicion, as people watch what each other is ordering and get angry at the irresponsibility of each other.
With recession upon us and fear of long-term depression, powerful populist notions will challenge the “greater good” notions of environmentalism. Put simply, if people are out of a job and can’t afford to pay their heating bill, they could give a rat’s ass about global warming and will be infuriated by billions in government spending for environmental causes including electric car subsidies and investments in solar power or biofuels.
The media loves to play the populist line, as it is a sure winner for readership. Politicians are highly susceptible to populist trends, and will be quick to change directions. You will hear a lot of politicians saying “I support these environmental causes and issues in the long run, but the people can’t afford them today.”
What first triggered this thought for me was the not-so-friendly response that I received to my blog on the need for a gasoline tax. One commenter even went so far as to call for my hanging! Then this morning I read in the NY Times that cheap coal is making a resurgence for home heating.
Watch this play out in 2009. The media will stoke the fires of populism and environmentalism will come under fierce attack. In the absence of private capital to fund major investments in advanced technologies to reduce CO2 emissions, the government will come under intense political pressure if it tries to step into the breach. Great courage will be needed to stay the course of tackling long-term global challenges while also addressing the short-term economic hardships.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
Well, if you were looking for a WIDE diversity of comments, you sure got them here. Good job!
You know, I'm a firm believer in UFO's, but some of these folks are WAY out there past me.
I am aware of most of the other Clean Tech's. The big difference with this process is that there is very little waste AND Process pays for itself. NEAR ZERO EMISSIONS! Unlike the others there will not be huge piles of waste (toxic or not) left for future generations to deal with. This process that I Proclaim is truly a "Waste to Gold" process. The biggest winners of this process are the Corporations that buy a license and utilize this process. Just the carbon credit savings alone is worth far more than investment cost for modifying the existing plants or building new ones. Now consider the profits to be had from carbon fibers ( the whole range of carbons), hydrogen gas and the other industrial chemicals byproducts. While you are at it consider the much improved thermal efficiencies of on site hydrogen fuel. If combined with the German Clean Tech process of using Oxygen in place of air, then there would be the added benefit of no NO2 emissions and far less thermal loses. Roughly 80% less due to not passing the nitrogen thru the furnace and out the stack.
With cheaper clean electric power to recharge electric vehicles, like Shai Agassi's proven plan archives.eetimes.com/i... , we will greatly reduce our dependance on foriegn oil AND Carbon dioxide from the transportation sector.
Cheap Energy = more jobs.
What is the Dollar amount place on the Enviromental benifits? This solution pays for itself!
The list of Positive reasons to use this process goes on and on.
Thank you for your time and the opportunity to Proclaim.
A couple observations:
Shale oil - Exxon's biggest economic/business mistake was to invest $2 billion in shale oil energy recovery. Ask them about what they think of the technology - remember it is not even close to rocket science and the energy input is roughly equal to energy out. Ultimately this is the measure we need to worry about, not cost.
Subsidies for green vs. carbon-based energy - Artie Fly is the first I've seen to get it close to right. Every since WW II was lost by the axis due to oil availability, oil's strategic import has been obvious to world leaders. The subsidies to the carbon energy economy far outstrip those to green tech - I mean, c'mon - didn't the administration just loan $17.4 bil to the car guys? I didn't notice that the loaned $17 bil to the wind guys... (so many easy examples here, don't get me started). Not to mention the externalities that are absorbed by no one: a defacto subsidy to the carbon energy industry.
Global warming - whatever you may think about the various causes of earth's temps rising, the greenhouse effect is an undeniable phenomenon of atmospheric physics - you coat a planet in a heat reflecting gas and less heat escapes. Whether you think the effect of this is big or small, it is physics - unless you believe in santa claus, you cannot deny the greenhouse effect.
As to various comments about the free market - don't make me laugh. The only thing free about our energy markets is bad information. Control of access to energy is nothing less than life or death for nation-states. Do you really think that those with the power to do otherwise would leave that up to "the market" and leave it to be "free"? Just look how quick we were to abandon free market principles in the face of the breakdown of the credit markets. (note to those who think: did we really have free market principles to abandon?).
Alright L's and G's - what say ye?
one, that since the contraction model presents so many problems, we should focus more efforts on pushing forward with space development. If we pushed for colonies rather than planetary sites, which is a feasible option that readers should investigate, we could be reaping the energy benefits as soon as other environmental initiatives, and at a cost about as expensive as land development in Manhattan.
two, that readers should be wary of social initiatives that increase anti-social behavior both as traditionally defined (theft, lying, infidelity) and as newly defined, behaviors that are anti-nature, ungreen, behaviors that defy the design of the environmental component or its optimum use for mankind, behaviors that go against nature. Clearly social virtue seems to be the best option when our individual comfort so much depends upon the behavior of others at the dinner party. Morally disciplined men and women are as much a resource as clean water, as this post indicates! Men and women who have been taught that all creatures must at times subordinate individual pleasure to some higher benefit, the good of another. Men and women who have been taught that there are constraints on their individual "freedom:" to act as they feel like acting.
I suggest that readers try viewing their own personal media choices for a few days using this new filter. They might find that we have built a virtual temple to acting exactly as we feel like acting, and make fun via movies, commercials, and news emphasis, of models like motherhood that involve self donarship rather than self aggrandizement--in fact, motherhood is the chief victim, followed shortly thereafter by fatherhood, especially when that role involves any form of leadership or the discipline of the family, for 'discipline' in any form is anathema.
In short, we need, for prosperity, one God, the Church, and confession. Who knew?
On Jan 02 05:21 PM Freedoms Truth wrote:
> That is welcome GOOD NEWS if indeed the stupidity of CO2 regulations
> is stopped dead in its tracks. Global warming is not a crisis, CO2
> is not a pollutant, and blaming man for what is mostly natural climate
> change is a hoax.
> Lets look at the data, look at the chart in this article:
> travismonitor.blogspot...
>
>
> Since 2005, most of the warming since 1980 has been erased. Now,
> I ask you - did Al Gore predict this in his mock-umentary? Nope.
> He lies and calls it a crisis.The fearmongerers predicted 1C of warming
> by now - ooops, of by about .. 1C.
> We are talking a minuscule 0.2C rise in 5 decades, making it clear
> that claims of huge impacts due to CO2 are either (a) false or (b)
> masked by massive natural cooling (unlikely, but if true suggests
> that we should crank up the coal plants to ward off the coming ice
> age).
>
>
> We are lucky indeed that natural variability has kicked in on the
> cool side recently, if only to give honest people a warning that
> the Global Warming fearmongerers are hoaxers. Had the 'crisis' been
> global cooling, all the news of recent cooling would have been blamed
> on man. Instead .... the reality of cooling is ignored in the news
> and the farce of a 'warming planet' continues, even as cool weather
> harms crop yields.
>
> We have bogus and noxious 'cures' for a problem that doesnt really
> exist. Cap-n-trade will harm the economy and be of no help to the
> environment; limited and taxing CO2 will only shift industry to places
> like china where the environmental impact will be WORSE (no pollution
> controls at all);
> The stupidity of believing in hoaxes like "global warming is a crisis"
> is indeed a luxury at best and a hysterical poison at worst.
>
> Good news indeed if we finally realize that CO2 should NOT be limited
> as it does us no harm.
A 'couple' of replies to your 'observations'
On Jan 03 11:18 AM SteveB/Colorado wrote:
> Reading some of the comments on this thread is amusing. "Let the
> markets fix the problem:" not to rain on a nice parade, but unregulated
> markets got us into the current economic mess and gave capitalism
> a bad name in the process.
>
> "Global warming is a hoax:" then maybe there is a rational (not
> a right wing hysterical explanation) reason for what I've observed
> with glaciers receding in the past 20 years. Kilimanjaro, Mt. Kenya,
> the Alps, Caucasus Mtns. of Russia, southern Andes, Rockies: I've
> seen them all over a period of time and SOMETHING is going on.<br/>
>
Yes, its not that global warming is a hoax, its that man-made global warming is a hoax. Global warming has been occurring since before the industrial revolution. We had a cooling trend before that and a global warming trend before that. What's more is that scientists know there is a direct relationship between solar activity and the heat on this planet and the sun has seen an increase in solar flareups.
> "Solar is a pipedream".....fu... it seems to be working well here
> in the West and the technology is getting better year by year; same
> for wind power. Yes, both are subsidized to a degree--but we're not
> subsidizing oil consumption with all our massive spending on roads??
Solar and wind are a pipedream as a viable economically competitive source for anything more than a drop in the bucket in our electrical transmission needs. Neither runs 24/7 and they still cost more per kilowatt. We do subsidize them and pay higher rates still. But as long as we keep it quite small its a manageable luxury. That isn't to say we won't one day make either more efficient and economical sources, it just isn't there yet.
> One thing Freedoms Truth wrote is a good idea: an oil tariff so there
> is a floor under oil prices. That makes sense.
See Subsidyeye's response to this above.
Frankly, I'm not enamored with exporting billions to the middle east. I'm not anti-oil but for the sake of security do desire a better energy hand here in the U.S. There are a lot of ideas I would like to see pursued. I believe in a all stones turned over approach. I vehemently disagree with the type of governmental intervention in the energy market that would see the government taxing arm or tariff arm manage our energy future. The ramifications of this disastrous thinking is a country that will forever relinquish any hope of competitiveness in the world economy. If I was China, India, Russia, or Brazil, I would hope America would follow this path. They won't because they aren't that stupid. They will then have the means to put to bed American economic dominance for good.
> jack
> jack
Is anyone OK with the fact that oil dependency has wrecked our economy over and over again since the early 70's? Is a bout of double-digit unemployment and inflation every few years an acceptable price to pay in exchange for commuting to work in 3 ton vehicles that make us feel more masculine? Are we OK with OPEC scheduling our recessions?
Are we OK with spending a trillion dollars a year driving ships around in the Persian Gulf and fighting oil wars to try to maintain our supply? Are the lives of 1,000 soldiers worth a $1 decrease in the price of gas? If not, what is the exchange rate nowadays? Are we OK with our main oil suppliers funding Hamas, Hezbolla, Russia's dictatorship, and the FARC? Are trillions of dollars in military funding and tens of thousands of dead soldiers not a form of subsidy for oil?
Are we OK with the possibility of a 2nd great depression if the oil supply gets cut off (for any reason: war, embargo, peak oil)? Are we OK with taking a calculated risk of desperate poverty just so we can sit in traffic for hours of our lives commuting 40 miles back and forth to work? Is reading a book while riding a train that miserable?
There you have it, plenty of conservative reasons why we should get off oil. It may cost a lot, but the downward spiral of the status quo is more expensive.
Re: AUTO44
Great comments, Hold that thought on getting the most out a BTU, I am hoping that issue can be addressed in the next year or two. You are right Fossil plants average about 60% and Nuclear plants just 40% thermal efficiency. I don't recall % for combustion engines, I do recall reading that 18 pounds of carbon dioxide is emitted for every gallon of gasoline used.
I am a Technician with over 35 years experience. I believe that considerable improvements can be achieved for two reasons. 1st, by burning hydrogen and pure oxygen (eliminates NO2 and losses due to the nitrogen content of air) and 2nd, NO gaseous emissions. I do not know how much heat content can be recovered from the pure H2O that is the result of combustion of Hydrogen with Oxygen. Any way the heat content of the water may not be much. Current technology, the temperature of the flue gas is determined by the dew point of the flue gas. The lowest flue gas temp that I have seen was 275 deg F. Any lower condensate starts to form and soon afterwords the metal duct work is lost due to corrosive flue gas condensates. May not seem like much until you realize that Millions of pounds of flue gas waste per hour pass through each smoke stack everyday.
Economically burning hydrogen for steam generation is just one of the many benefits of the CLEAN COAL / CLEAN HYDROCARBON Technology that is available TODAY. It has been Independantly verified. I know this process to be a fact that can be verified by anyone with a Chemistry or Physics background TODAY! If you chose to view the Patent application.
On Jan 02 02:07 PM Steve in Greensboro wrote:
> Finally, some good news!
As long as people are willing believe the politically motivated denier propaganda campaign rather than the entire world scientific community we will continue to hear idiotic statements and remarks like we see here.
Listen up deniers.
Not one of the lists of skeptic scientists that you have been duped by is valid. They are all phony lists with very little basis in reality.
The actual number of climate scientists who disagree with the AGW theory is about 1/10 of 1%. And most of those have been thoroughly discredited in the scientific world.
The consensus among scientists is overwhelming in support of the IPCC findings
What can one say to someone more willing to listen to the likes of Rush Limbaugh than practically the entire world scientific community.
The national academy of science of every nation that has one is in support of the IPCC, as are the earth science faculty of every major universty in the world. Anyone who believes the denier anti science nonsense is a fool.
At this point it is the same as believing the scientists who said cigarette smoke was harmless, because the tobacco firms paid them to say that. It is no different. It is not one bit different than that.
Show me a climate scientist who disagrees, who isn't paid by oil money.
Your opinions have been bought and sold by one of the biggest propaganda campaigns in history, paid for by the fossil fuel industry.
Deniers are ready to listen to the guy who started the Oregon Petition with it's phony list of skeptical scientists, regardless of the fact that he has a theory that the industrial revolution has increased biodiversity on earth and that the more CO2 we pump into the atmosphere, the more wonderful and lush life on earth will be. I'm not making this up. This is who they listen to, rather than the actual climate scientists who have studied the issue for at leat 20 years independently, and over 30 years for some. By the way, the group who started the Oregon Petition does not contain a single climate scientist. The list was compiled by passing around what amounted to a forged National Academy of Science document to fool some scientists into signing it. It has been completely debunked.
www.sourcewatch.org/in...
But deniers cling to this list like it was the gospel truth.
Want more examples? The deniers have not a single scientific leg to stand on, so they endlessly repeat arguments that have been disproven by science, some as long as 20 years ago. But that doesn't phase them. They know better than the tens of thousands of climate scientists. These arguments have become urban legends, with not a shred of truth. Yet deniers expound on them hundreds of times a day on the internet. They are BS. Abslolute BS, period. Ideology is no substitute for critical thinking. Deniers choose the former over the latter.
How about right wing propaganda mill Heartland Institute, who Exxon funds, and which is one of the leading denier spin mills. They issued their list of experts in Texas who disagree with the IPCC. Here's the list of 4.
emergency room physician
petroleum engineer
policy analyst
energy expert
NOT ONE CLIMATE SCIENTIST
There are dozens if not hundreds of climate scientists in Texas but the Heartland Institute can't get a single one on their phony list.
How about Senator Inhofe's phony list of 413 "prominent scientists" who disagree? This too has been thoroughly debunked. The list includes.
20 economists:
44 television weather men:
70 scientists with no expertise in climate:
84 scientists paid by the oil industry:
3 dead people:
scientists who agree with the IPCC
And anthropologist and a historian who are outspoken in their support for IPCC:
James Peden, who calls himself an atmospheric physicist even though he long ago left climate science, to be a web designer:
Inhofe and Morano misinterpreted a paper published in Geophysical Research Letters.
They claimed that it showed proof that the sun was responsible for the warming that's been observed in the last 100 years. The paper they quote says exactly the opposite from what they claim. This has been verified by the author of the paper.
Think there isn't vast and overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming? See here.
www.logicalscience.com.../
"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know - except maybe Newton's second law of dynamics."
-Dr. James Baker - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
The AGW theory as reported on by the IPCC in the fourth assessment of over 20 years of research has been called the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific paper in the history of science. There were over 900 peer reviewed papers on climate change. Not one opposed the conclusions of the IPCC
The same small list of well known climate change deniers is repeated endlessly. If you study the denier material you will see the same names over and over again.
Like Fred Singer
Fred Singer has not had a peer reviewed paper published in 20 years. He is linked to the fossil fuel industry and was once a hired gun for the tobacco industry to give "expert" testimony that cigarette smoke is not bad for you. He also believes that CFC don't deplete the ozone layer in the atmosphere. This is a well established scientific fact, but not to Singer.
And Lindzen
Linzen is paid $2,500/day to be a consultant for the fossil fuel industry. His trip to Washington to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuel co. Lindzen appeared in "The Great Global Warming Swindle" a documentary that was denounced by the Royal Society, the chief scientific advisory group to the British government, and the equivalant of our National Acadamy of Science. Some parties threatened to sue the director of the film for gross misrepresentation of science
Roy Spencer and John Christy are both well known scientists among the climate change denier crowd . These two single handedly gave deniers amunition for a skeptic argument, about whether satellite data confirmed the global warming that the surface data showed. Deniers used this argument for a decade, encouraged by Spencer and Christy. It is well known that Spencer and Christy made serious and numerous errors in their data analysis. They were wrong. But this skeptic argument is still repeated all the time by deniers. Read more here: climateprogress.org/20.../
Maybe you've been swayed by the movie "The Great Global Warming Swindle".
Look at what you believe.
The one and only "scientific advisor" for the movie is Martin Livermore, who has no scientific credentials other than being the director of an online right wing think tank called The Scientific Alliance, which was established by the anti-green lobbying and public relations company, British Aggregates Association.
One credible climate scientist, Dr. Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at MIT was quoted out of context and "duped" into appearing in the documentary. He says the movie was grossly distorted and as close to pure propaganda as anything since WW2.
He is considering filing a complaint with the British broadcast regulator, Ofcom.
There is Tim Ball, a retired professor of the department of geography at the University of Winnipeg. In the documentary, he is listed as Professor Tim Ball, University of Winnipeg, Department of Climatology. There is no Department of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg! He has not published a research paper in eleven years.
And then there's Dr. Paul Reiter, who's connected with the Annapolis Centre for Science Based Public Policy, another right wing think tank, which received $763,500 from Exxon Mobile.
and there's
Dr. Paul Copper
Listed as an "Allied Expert" for the Natural Resource Stewardship Project (NRSP), a lobby organization that refuses to disclose it's funding sources. The NRSP is led by executive director Tom Harris and Dr. Tim Ball. An Oct. 16, 2006 CanWest Global news article on who funds the NRSP, it states that "a confidentiality agreement doesn't allow him [Tom Harris] to say whether energy companies are funding his group." The NRSP also has ties to Canadian energy-sector lobbyists.
www.desmogblog.com/sea...
And I have only scratched the surface of this phony disinformation denier campaign and it's gullibe adherents.
National Academy of Sciences (U.S.)
NASA
Woods Hole Resesarch Center
US Geological Survey (USGS)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
American Association of State Climatologists
Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006 (the study authorized and then censored by Bush)
American Chemical Society - (world's largest scientific organization with over 155,000 members)
Geological Society of America
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
American Association of State Climatologists
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
American Astronomical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
Stratigraphy Commission - Geological Society of London - (The world's oldest and the United Kingdom's largest geoscience organization)
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Royal Society, United Kingdom
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society of Canada
Science Council of Japan
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
French Academy of Sciences
German Academy of Natural Scientists
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy)
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Union of Concerned Scientists
The Institution of Engineers Australia
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
National Research Council
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospherice Sciences
World Meteorological Organization
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
International Council on Science
Deniers would have you believe that somehow all these organizations and the thousands of scientists from 120 countries who have been doing the research for 20 years, and over 30 years for some, are all scamming you in some dark conspiracy. Wow, and they call the scientists alarmists!
However I'm afraid that many true believers in the world of crackpot theories went through a painful divorce with reality a long time ago and don't care about evidence or the scientific method. They have their own little world of alternative "news" sources, echo chamber websites, ameteur "research", and books about how the mainstream conspires to suppress their opinions on bigfoot/aliens/alterna... medicine/non-organic oil/colon cleansing/free hydrogen/cold fusion, etc. I'm sure you've read Michael Shermer.
Nonetheless, the hard work of people like you is necessary, because the moonbats are willing to work twice as hard to spread their ideas / validate their identities.
O.K. The Proclaimer. You are reading between the lines; clever. Seeking Alpha? You are ON. It is a lot more involved than just a quest for a max-out by brainstorming and reengineering the Laws of Physics and Thermodynamics and Hydraulics, to arrive at "Zero Point Energy", not limited to the DOE dream of a Novel “Energy Storage” by a magic, fostering “Near-Zero O&M, as well as aiming to deliver power to the grid at less than 6 cents/kWh. As to a process, cheaper than all fossil fuels, stand alone, as well as any renewable, not limited to uranium as a fuel, YES, there is; a Super Hybrid Facility, comprised of multi-components, scavenging each other produced energy’s residual, being equal to produced energy, fostered by the Recovered (virtually free) Energy Components, that can produce electric power at less than 4 cents/kWh. No other fossil fuel can do that. Also, YES there is a process that can beat by a mile the O&M of the SWRO (Seawater Desalination by Reverse Osmosis), again “scavenged (free) recovered sources”, both in BTU, Heat Rate, Condensation Capacity’s Factor, et al, all the way of producing crop’s irrigation water, that is there times cheaper.
However, that is only a part thereof of what I am talking about. I am going to quiz you, and welcome your interrogatory in return. (YES, I am one of these Socrates brain child 65 years of age, aiming to deliver Super Alpha and I will, together with out team and participants).
Q. Is the wholesale price, on the open market, for tomatoes over $1/lbs?
Q. Can a Super Hybrid Facility, fully integrated and in synergy with crops (tomatoes) production facility, utilizing far more advanced than organic and hydroponic process, deliver 50 lbs/square feet of tomatoes (6-cuts/year), at O&M cost of less than 15%, (EBITDA at 67%)?
Q. Is the maximum/minimum Market Price Referent for wholesale electric power at over $92/mWh and as low as $42/mWh, respectively?
Q. Is the maximum/minim wholesale rate for the process water (potable at another rate) commodity at $1,880/acre-feet and as low as $330/acre-feet, respectively?
Q. Can just 500 hectares of tomato super-greenhouses (latest inventions, a lot more protected by other means than by a Patent Pending), integrated and in synergy with a Super Hybrid Facility, yields $570 million/year in revenue, at O&M cost of less than $85 million/year, having a total development cost of less than $100 million (you need over 1,000MWe coal-fired power plant to generate such revenue, however at O&M cost of over $300 million, [cost of coal, transportation, sequestration, et al myriads and at a development costs of not less than $500 million] )?
Q. Where is the lowest farm labor cost, say $11/day, to grow, produce and deliver tomato to the US Markets?
Q. Do you think that above COMPLEX can be develop for 3-times less than any fossil fuel/SWRO plants?
Q. Which Regulatory in which country will kiss your ass to bring them all of herein above (Exuberant Tax Revenue for them, on their platform’s standards)?
Q. Why, even the GE’ CEO, said “It is a Hell to get anything done in US, so we’ll do it elsewhere”?
Q. Do you think that above processes are not environmentally friendly?
Q. Do you think that above is not in the process of being implemented and without any participation by any of Seeking Alpha folks, nor from any one, not limited to “Zero-Gov-Subsidy”?
Until the next round, if any, Respectfully, Nick the Greek Socrates.
You have many question, allow me to answer in this manner: Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Good Point, agree, Yes it does benefit the Enviroment. The same can be said for Ray & Jim's process.
Mr Siry, I believe that Nick has something very real to offer Seeking Alpha readers, although hard to understand, in his contributions.
Oh....Who are Ray & Jim? Clue: They each hold Patents that have benefited the Environment for over 20 years!