6 ms·

You may be putting the cart before the horse. Wouldnt pumping out tons of anything create forcing functions for efficiency, as in, exactly what happened but on

You may be putting the cart before the horse. Wouldnt pumping out tons of anything create forcing functions for efficiency, as in, exactly what happened but on a longer timeframe?

robertlagrant 2y ago
I don't think that's the case. Pumping them out might well mean free money, which means there's no incentive to do better.
- seadan83 2y ago
  Industries which receive subsidies today and still have incentives "to do better" are counter-examples to your statement. " Pumping them out might well mean free money" The article talks about this, Wrights law. The "pumping them out" leads to economies of scale and production efficiency in of itself.
  - jokethrowaway 2y ago
    You never know what unintended consequences you have with subsidies Central Planning is never free.
    - digging 2y ago
      > You never know what unintended consequences you have with subsidies We already have subsidies and catastrophic climate change.
      - robertlagrant 2y ago
        Yes. Exactly.
    - observationist 2y ago
      Much of the forced and child labor used in solar panel production, mining, and transport, as with everything else in China's production systems, goes completely unacknowledged and unaccounted for in these navel gazing expeditions. With all those corners cut to mass produce cheap materials like batteries and solar panels and computers and so forth, China is able to undercut production that utilizes ethical and sustainable production. I don't think you can look at China's production "costs" as legitimate data, and the problem doesn't seem to be one that anyone outside of China will ever fix. The extent of the influence the rest of the world has over the problem lies entirely in our ability to not do business with China. When you look at all the savings you get when buying electronics and solar panels and infrastructure related products coming out of China, you're getting a human suffering discount. I don't think it's a good thing to include those numbers when considering long term things like fossil fuel dependencies and so forth - let's not bake in the human suffering discounts and at least try to price in human rights and humane labor practices. It turns out a lot of things are way more expensive when factory workers and shippers and everyone in a supply chain get paid fair wages and work fair hours. This isn't to say anything in favor of fossil fuels, I just think the immediate plight of China's factory workers might be an important factor relevant to the actual costs in play.
      - janalsncm 2y ago
        Yes, things would be more expensive if workers had more rights. I don’t see how that is an argument against or in favor of any particular energy source. Further, if workers’ well-being are your main consideration (admirable), we should be moving away from coal as quickly as possible.
        hateover9000 2y ago
        Proponents of renewables often cite the price and use it as an argument against nuclear energy. Nuclear energetics uses highly regulated local labor, giving it an inherent disadvantage against unregulated foreign labor. If renewables rely on underpaid or even child labor, it's not sustainable nor realistic, the numbers in that calculation have to be updated and the decisions reconsidered.
        2y ago
    - lazyasciiart 2y ago
      As opposed to the unintended consequences of unregulated capitalism? Nothing is free - if you think it is, you’re just ignoring some of the costs.
      - janalsncm 2y ago
        Climate change itself is an unintended consequence of pricing the well-being of the commons at zero. There is a fair discussion regarding regulated vs free market to be had, but people at least need to understand market failures first (externalities being one of them).
    - the_why_of_y 2y ago
      Good to know that our reliance on fossil fuels is a result of "central planning". Globally, fossil fuel subsidies were $5.9 trillion in 2020 or about 6.8 percent of GDP https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2021/09/23/Still-Not-Getting-Energy-Prices-Right-A-Global-and-Country-Update-of-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-466004 https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2021/09/23/Sti...
      - snapplebobapple 2y ago
        Those are not the same kind of subsidy. there is quite a lot more ambiguity and uncertainty in the type of subsidy because it is claiming mispricing of externalities (i.e your usage caused x harm and you didnt pay for x harm) rather than the variety the renewables industry mostly gets which is a direct injection of cash through grants and various price supports.
    - janalsncm 2y ago
      The entire U.S. tax code is one big Central Planning committee. Who should get subsidies? Who should get taxed? The capitalists who celebrated the luxury of American supermarkets over Soviet grocery stores failed to mention the significant farm subsidies given then (and still given).
      - robertlagrant 2y ago
        You should see the Soviet levels of subsidies.
        janalsncm 2y ago
        There’s an old joke of a woman who agrees to sleep with a man for a million dollars but refuses for a dollar (“what kind of woman do you take me for?”), the punchline being that it’s no longer a question of principles but of price. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/03/07/haggling https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/03/07/haggling I guess the point here is that as soon as some amount of subsidies is acceptable, it’s no longer a showdown between unbridled capitalism and a command economy. The question really just becomes one of degree.
  - username135 2y ago
    Maybe a little of column A and a little of column B
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- sophacles 2y ago
  Of course there is. The subsidy would be on watts output, not on number if panels. Therefore any way to make the panels cheaper to produce and/or more efficient brings more revenue and more profit margin.
  - plorg 2y ago
    Assuming you mean (kilo)watt-hour output, but I don't think that changes the argument.
llm_trw 2y ago
Building external combustion cars in the 1880s might have given Britain an economic edge over the US in the period, but the market would have still collapsed when internal combustion matured enough. And being a specialist in one technology usually means you're not able to move to a different one when it becomes obsolete.

You may be putting the cart before the horse. Wouldnt pumping out tons of anything create forcing functions for efficiency, as in, exactly what happened but on a longer timeframe?

robertlagrant 2y ago

I don't think that's the case. Pumping them out might well mean free money, which means there's no incentive to do better.

seadan83 2y ago
Industries which receive subsidies today and still have incentives "to do better" are counter-examples to your statement. " Pumping them out might well mean free money" The article talks about this, Wrights law. The "pumping them out" leads to economies of scale and production efficiency in of itself.
- jokethrowaway 2y ago
  You never know what unintended consequences you have with subsidies Central Planning is never free.
  - digging 2y ago
    > You never know what unintended consequences you have with subsidies We already have subsidies and catastrophic climate change.
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      Yes. Exactly.
  - observationist 2y ago
    Much of the forced and child labor used in solar panel production, mining, and transport, as with everything else in China's production systems, goes completely unacknowledged and unaccounted for in these navel gazing expeditions. With all those corners cut to mass produce cheap materials like batteries and solar panels and computers and so forth, China is able to undercut production that utilizes ethical and sustainable production. I don't think you can look at China's production "costs" as legitimate data, and the problem doesn't seem to be one that anyone outside of China will ever fix. The extent of the influence the rest of the world has over the problem lies entirely in our ability to not do business with China. When you look at all the savings you get when buying electronics and solar panels and infrastructure related products coming out of China, you're getting a human suffering discount. I don't think it's a good thing to include those numbers when considering long term things like fossil fuel dependencies and so forth - let's not bake in the human suffering discounts and at least try to price in human rights and humane labor practices. It turns out a lot of things are way more expensive when factory workers and shippers and everyone in a supply chain get paid fair wages and work fair hours. This isn't to say anything in favor of fossil fuels, I just think the immediate plight of China's factory workers might be an important factor relevant to the actual costs in play.
    - janalsncm 2y ago
      Yes, things would be more expensive if workers had more rights. I don’t see how that is an argument against or in favor of any particular energy source. Further, if workers’ well-being are your main consideration (admirable), we should be moving away from coal as quickly as possible.
      - hateover9000 2y ago
        Proponents of renewables often cite the price and use it as an argument against nuclear energy. Nuclear energetics uses highly regulated local labor, giving it an inherent disadvantage against unregulated foreign labor. If renewables rely on underpaid or even child labor, it's not sustainable nor realistic, the numbers in that calculation have to be updated and the decisions reconsidered.
      - 2y ago
  - lazyasciiart 2y ago
    As opposed to the unintended consequences of unregulated capitalism? Nothing is free - if you think it is, you’re just ignoring some of the costs.
    - janalsncm 2y ago
      Climate change itself is an unintended consequence of pricing the well-being of the commons at zero. There is a fair discussion regarding regulated vs free market to be had, but people at least need to understand market failures first (externalities being one of them).
  - the_why_of_y 2y ago
    Good to know that our reliance on fossil fuels is a result of "central planning". Globally, fossil fuel subsidies were $5.9 trillion in 2020 or about 6.8 percent of GDP https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2021/09/23/Still-Not-Getting-Energy-Prices-Right-A-Global-and-Country-Update-of-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-466004 https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2021/09/23/Sti...
    - snapplebobapple 2y ago
      Those are not the same kind of subsidy. there is quite a lot more ambiguity and uncertainty in the type of subsidy because it is claiming mispricing of externalities (i.e your usage caused x harm and you didnt pay for x harm) rather than the variety the renewables industry mostly gets which is a direct injection of cash through grants and various price supports.
  - janalsncm 2y ago
    The entire U.S. tax code is one big Central Planning committee. Who should get subsidies? Who should get taxed? The capitalists who celebrated the luxury of American supermarkets over Soviet grocery stores failed to mention the significant farm subsidies given then (and still given).
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      You should see the Soviet levels of subsidies.
      - janalsncm 2y ago
        There’s an old joke of a woman who agrees to sleep with a man for a million dollars but refuses for a dollar (“what kind of woman do you take me for?”), the punchline being that it’s no longer a question of principles but of price. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/03/07/haggling https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/03/07/haggling I guess the point here is that as soon as some amount of subsidies is acceptable, it’s no longer a showdown between unbridled capitalism and a command economy. The question really just becomes one of degree.
- username135 2y ago
  Maybe a little of column A and a little of column B
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
sophacles 2y ago
Of course there is. The subsidy would be on watts output, not on number if panels. Therefore any way to make the panels cheaper to produce and/or more efficient brings more revenue and more profit margin.
- plorg 2y ago
  Assuming you mean (kilo)watt-hour output, but I don't think that changes the argument.

llm_trw 2y ago

Building external combustion cars in the 1880s might have given Britain an economic edge over the US in the period, but the market would have still collapsed when internal combustion matured enough. And being a specialist in one technology usually means you're not able to move to a different one when it becomes obsolete.