Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Hardware and Technology > CPUs and Overclocking

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals
· Free Stuff
· Contests and Sweepstakes
· Black Friday 2013
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-15-2012, 04:51 PM   #76
ShintaiDK
Diamond Member
 
ShintaiDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 9,540
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajay View Post
Dang Euros don't know nothing about the benefits of cheap oil

(j/k) But this matter is view differently in the US. or at least in parts of it.
Hehe, I just hope the US wakes up before its too late.

The US needs to change radically. Its basicly stuck in the 50s/60s.

Inefficient housing construction in terms of energy. Heat and AC energy is too cheap to make a change. And people just pay more over the long term due to this.

Very inefficient urban planning: (Example.) http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn....icient-sprawl/
This is due to cheap oil. People waste their lives commute and lack public transportation. Its also very expensive due to all the roads. And then again. An asphalt jungle aint fun either. It brings diseases and noise.
And lastly, its a very strategic bad thing to be energy dependent on either unstable countries or countries you aint exactly best friends with. You can have the biggest military in the world. But if your population dont have energy they will riot and the country will crash.

Inefficient manufactoring. This directly effect the competitiveness of american businesses.

The taxdollar subsized energy just causes alot more problems than it solves. Its much more beneficial to tax energy instead of subsidize it.
ShintaiDK is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2012, 05:26 PM   #77
OCGuy
Lifer
 
OCGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: CA
Posts: 26,455
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShintaiDK View Post
Hehe, I just hope the US wakes up before its too late.

The US needs to change radically. Its basicly stuck in the 50s/60s.

Inefficient housing construction in terms of energy. Heat and AC energy is too cheap to make a change. And people just pay more over the long term due to this.

Very inefficient urban planning: (Example.) http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn....icient-sprawl/
This is due to cheap oil. People waste their lives commute and lack public transportation. Its also very expensive due to all the roads. And then again. An asphalt jungle aint fun either. It brings diseases and noise.
And lastly, its a very strategic bad thing to be energy dependent on either unstable countries or countries you aint exactly best friends with. You can have the biggest military in the world. But if your population dont have energy they will riot and the country will crash.

Inefficient manufactoring. This directly effect the competitiveness of american businesses.

The taxdollar subsized energy just causes alot more problems than it solves. Its much more beneficial to tax energy instead of subsidize it.

Do they not have news over there in Denmark? We are about to become the #1 energy producer in the world again, we are having an insane energy boon in this country.

Fracking has ensured our dominance for another 30-50 years. What it does to the environment, that is a different story.
__________________
4670k @ 4.2
MSI Gaming GTX770 @ 1246/7500
OCGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2012, 07:44 PM   #78
ShintaiDK
Diamond Member
 
ShintaiDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 9,540
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCGuy View Post
Do they not have news over there in Denmark? We are about to become the #1 energy producer in the world again, we are having an insane energy boon in this country.

Fracking has ensured our dominance for another 30-50 years. What it does to the environment, that is a different story.
Dominance?

You mean burning coal for energy? I dont see how thats gonna help. If you noticed, cheap energy isnt nessesary good. And that all the energy is sponsored with taxdollars aint helping either. It doesnt help if your energy cost 25% less, if you use twice as much of it to do the same thing.

Last edited by ShintaiDK; 12-15-2012 at 08:28 PM.
ShintaiDK is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2012, 09:01 PM   #79
pablo87
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 298
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IntelUser2000 View Post
You are probably talking about that 22nm is expected towards end of 2013.

See, unlike the PC market, where its already established and any time shift by Intel is directly felt, that's not true for mobiles. Taking a chip and making it into a fully functional smartphone takes time.

The first Medfield Smartphone came in May 2012. If Nokia hadn't abandoned MeeGo and went with Medfield, it would have been out fall of last year. The chips were available more than a year before that, which is typically what's needed by phone makers. If the Nokia deal worked, we'd have seen the 22nm chip that much earlier, which would make it early-mid 2013.

But the nature of your posts may mean I'm wasting my posts anyway so I'll stop here.
The point was simpler than that - based solely on their mfg lead, Intel should be ahead in tablets and smartphones. Since they are not, the problem lies elsewhere. Call it whatever you want - myopia, complacency, blind spot, they missed the boat. They had StrongARM in 1997...xscale wasn't even on the sales org's radar afaik. Pentium 4 to Pentium M same pattern - don't mess with our POR (Intel tried to dissuade customers from selling Pentium M desktops if you can believe it).

I have no agenda other than telling it as I see it. I realize that's difficult to understand for most.

Last edited by pablo87; 12-15-2012 at 10:03 PM.
pablo87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2012, 10:00 PM   #80
pablo87
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 298
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShintaiDK View Post
Energy aint the reason. But one reason could be that US wages are so low, that its starting to be on the level of development countries. Or simply centralization of its operations.

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/month...ar/may2012.pdf
http://www.energy.eu/

Cheap energy by itself doesnt mean you are more competitive. Cheap energy can actually be a direct penalty in efficiency modernization.
its a factor. Isn't energy a significant cost for a fab?

Ireland's electricity cost must be much higher than in the US since half or more of their input is imported natural gas at a cost 3-4x US prices.

Besides, like other European nations, they've increased their reliance on coal because it's cheaper. And it's cheaper because the US is using less of it. Those who use more coal are the ones being subsidized.. Now if you had said the US was fortunate to have so much natural gas you might have a point though it was American ingenuity that discovered it.

You're probably right though, its not the main reason - expanding an existing fab has to be more cost effective than building another one.

Also, found this letter online from SIA to the US tax sub committee back in March 2012 discussing taxation of fabs. The 3 examples given were Ireland, Singapore and the US...also, intel's tax rate dropped the past 2 quarters, and now the expansion in the US and delay in Ireland...

Everything in this story leads to financial reasons. Which is fine but let's call a spade a spade.
pablo87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2012, 10:08 PM   #81
ShintaiDK
Diamond Member
 
ShintaiDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 9,540
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pablo87 View Post
its a factor. Isn't energy a significant cost for a fab?

Ireland's electricity cost must be much higher than in the US since half or more of their input is imported natural gas at a cost 3-4x US prices.

Besides, like other European nations, they've increased their reliance on coal because it's cheaper. And it's cheaper because the US is using less of it. Those who use more coal are the ones being subsidized.. Now if you had said the US was fortunate to have so much natural gas you might have a point though it was American ingenuity that discovered it.

You're probably right though, its not the main reason - expanding an existing fab has to be more cost effective than building another one.

Also, found this letter online from SIA to the US tax sub committee back in March 2012 discussing taxation of fabs. The 3 examples given were Ireland, Singapore and the US...also, intel's tax rate dropped the past 2 quarters, and now the expansion in the US and delay in Ireland...

Everything in this story leads to financial reasons. Which is fine but let's call a spade a spade.
If much much higher means around 25% more. Then yes.

Coal keeps increasing in price. And renewable energy is cheaper than coal. The main reason we still use coal is because the coal plants are already build and payed for. To put a future on coal is simply bad economics.



Most companies dont pay tax at all. In Denmark for example, only 1/3rd of all companies pay tax. Rest either directly cheats or uses loopholes. So I doubt tax is the problem. Specially when Microsoft, Google and Apple happily cheats massively in tax. I am sure Intel does as well.

So it leads back to wages.

Last edited by ShintaiDK; 12-15-2012 at 10:15 PM.
ShintaiDK is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2012, 02:56 PM   #82
Ajay
Golden Member
 
Ajay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,809
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShintaiDK View Post
Hehe, I just hope the US wakes up before its too late.

The US needs to change radically. Its basicly stuck in the 50s/60s.

Inefficient housing construction in terms of energy. Heat and AC energy is too cheap to make a change. And people just pay more over the long term due to this.

Very inefficient urban planning: (Example.) http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn....icient-sprawl/
This is due to cheap oil. People waste their lives commute and lack public transportation. Its also very expensive due to all the roads. And then again. An asphalt jungle aint fun either. It brings diseases and noise.
And lastly, its a very strategic bad thing to be energy dependent on either unstable countries or countries you aint exactly best friends with. You can have the biggest military in the world. But if your population dont have energy they will riot and the country will crash.

Inefficient manufactoring. This directly effect the competitiveness of american businesses.

The taxdollar subsized energy just causes alot more problems than it solves. Its much more beneficial to tax energy instead of subsidize it.
Certain inefficiencies are always going to exist in the US. If you exclude Russia, the US dwarfs Europe in size, but we have only about 50% the population of Europe. So there will always be inefficiencies in the transportation of people, cargo, energy and data compared to Europe. We do have an opportunity to improve on all these areas, and I hope we do. First things first though is that we need to get our economy going again to address these needs. I don't want to be-labor this much as it is off-topic, but there are somethings that we can learn for our friends across the Atlantic and I hope we do. That said, we are a very different country and have long been blessed with abundant natural resources - changing that sort of mindset will take at least another generation, but we are beginning to move slowly.
__________________
Asus P6T V2 Deluxe Ci7 970 @ 4.2GHz w/HT, Corsair H100i, 2x240GB SanDisk Extreme RAID0, 2x WD VR 300GB RAID0, MSI GTX 680 PE @ 1110MHz, 12GB G.Skill Riojaws DDR3 1600, Corair 850HX, Corsair 800D case. Win7 x64 Ultimate. Dell U2412M.
Heatware
Ajay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2012, 04:54 PM   #83
ShintaiDK
Diamond Member
 
ShintaiDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 9,540
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajay View Post
Certain inefficiencies are always going to exist in the US. If you exclude Russia, the US dwarfs Europe in size, but we have only about 50% the population of Europe. So there will always be inefficiencies in the transportation of people, cargo, energy and data compared to Europe. We do have an opportunity to improve on all these areas, and I hope we do. First things first though is that we need to get our economy going again to address these needs. I don't want to be-labor this much as it is off-topic, but there are somethings that we can learn for our friends across the Atlantic and I hope we do. That said, we are a very different country and have long been blessed with abundant natural resources - changing that sort of mindset will take at least another generation, but we are beginning to move slowly.
I hope your are right. But remember this improves the economy and create jobs, US jobs. So its a good thing to invest in anytime. Plus its a saver on the long haul. People just need to look beyond the "instant gratification syndrome". Kinda funny when you think on people buy homes with 20 or 30 year mortgages. Yet they cant overcome this.

The main parts have nothing to do with size. Transportation between cities are what they are. But the main problem is inefficiency in the entire chain. Heating and cooling of homes, insulation of homes, power used for appliances, huge area of cities due to lack of urbanization, public transport.

In electricity alone. When an american uses 4Kw/h. A european uses 2. And a chinese 1. And this includes industry too.

House heating and cooling is a whole issue on its own. Here we for example got the A to G rating for houses, just as we do with appliances. It can easily cost 2000-5000$ (depending on size etc.) a year here just in heat between a A rated and a G rated. An infrared thermal cam is perfect to see where your home leaks (your money.). Either cold or heat.
ShintaiDK is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2012, 06:39 PM   #84
Idontcare
Administrator
Elite Member
 
Idontcare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: 臺北市
Posts: 20,101
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShintaiDK View Post
In electricity alone. When an american uses 4Kw/h. A european uses 2. And a chinese 1. And this includes industry too.
Yeah that is a direct byproduct of a hundred years of dirt-cheap electricity rates (relative to the rest of the globe). No question there.

When the cost-of-operation is negligible, the consumer doesn't factor it in as a differentiating factor when they make a purchase. This is true of all energy consuming devices, be it our homes, cars, computers, etc.

When gas went to $4/gallon then all of a sudden people couldn't stop talking about the Prius in my neighborhood.

When our state-sanctioned electricity provider was deregulated and allowed to raise rates by some 30% then all of a sudden we had a remodeling boom as everyone scurried to replace their 15 yr-old inefficient heat pumps with new ones sporting better SEER numbers.

In my experience it is a rather linear cause-and-effect between consumption, disposable income, and price.
Idontcare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2012, 08:42 PM   #85
ShintaiDK
Diamond Member
 
ShintaiDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 9,540
Default

And thats why tax to change behaviour is a good thing. The US energy sector is essentially a free buffet to milk the country with taxdollars as dessert.

Better jobs would also be created with the energy consumption change. Being a coalminer aint exactly a dreamjob. If the US could get down to european usage. Half the plants could be removed. And that would also save alot of american lives every year. And an even greater number in terms of air polution related diseases. And the overstressed grid could get break too and save money there as well. It would also make the country much less volatile to energy price changes. To make things worse, the US is a netimporter of around 25 billion Kw/h a year. To make it even worse the average efficiency of the US electricity production network is around 33%.

And having your dollars burned in a coalplants chimey aint exactly beneficial to the private person either. Alot more nicer things could be had instead in your home.

Less is more.

Last edited by ShintaiDK; 12-17-2012 at 08:55 PM.
ShintaiDK is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2012, 09:51 PM   #86
Red Hawk
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShintaiDK View Post
Most companies dont pay tax at all. In Denmark for example, only 1/3rd of all companies pay tax. Rest either directly cheats or uses loopholes. So I doubt tax is the problem. Specially when Microsoft, Google and Apple happily cheats massively in tax. I am sure Intel does as well.

So it leads back to wages.
People cheat taxes in Denmark probably because taxes are insane in Denmark. There's what, a 50% income tax in Denmark? Not every country has ludicrous tax rates like that, so not every country will have companies driven to dodge taxes not out of greed but out of necessity. Oh, I'm sure they explore loopholes to exploit, but outright cheating shouldn't be terribly commonplace.
__________________
Desktop: Thermaltake V-4 Black case | Gigabyte GA-Z68AP-D3 | Core i5 2500k @ 4 GHz | ASUS Radeon HD 7870 DirectCU II 2 GB @ 1110 MHz | 8 GB G.Skill DDR3 RAM 1333 MHz | 120GB OCZ Vertex 3 SSD & Western Digital 500 GB HDD | Antec 650w PSU | Acer 1080p 60 Hz 21.5'' | Windows 8.1 Professional
Laptop: ASUS K52Jr-X5 | Core i3-350m @ 2.26 GHz| Mobility Radeon HD 5470 1 GB @ 750 MHz 4 GB DDR3 RAM | 90 GB OCZ Agility 3 SSD | 1366x768 15.6'' | Windows 8.1 Professional
Red Hawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2012, 11:23 PM   #87
pablo87
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 298
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShintaiDK View Post
If much much higher means around 25% more. Then yes.

Coal keeps increasing in price. And renewable energy is cheaper than coal. The main reason we still use coal is because the coal plants are already build and payed for. To put a future on coal is simply bad economics.



Most companies dont pay tax at all. In Denmark for example, only 1/3rd of all companies pay tax. Rest either directly cheats or uses loopholes. So I doubt tax is the problem. Specially when Microsoft, Google and Apple happily cheats massively in tax. I am sure Intel does as well.

So it leads back to wages.
Your graph on coal prices is a little old.

You're right on taxes - its the only area Intel reduced cost the past 2 quarters.

Can't use Denmark as a comparison, its a parallel universe...
pablo87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2012, 12:31 AM   #88
Tuna-Fish
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 536
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShintaiDK View Post
Dominance?

You mean burning coal for energy?
No, he means natural gas extracted by hydraulic fracturing. Shale gas was though to be unextractable, as it's trapped in bubbles in rock that is not permeable to gas. So if you drill a well, the only gas you get is the one within the diameter of the borehole. Not very efficient. Then someone figured out that if you drill a hole in shale, then push an incompressible fluid down that hole at pressure enough to crush the shale, the rock around the well fractures, and you can now extract the natural gas.

This has created an immense "fracking" boom. Natural gas used to be one of the more expensive ways to make electricity -- gas turbines were bought so that they would only be turned on to handle peak load. Now natural gas price in the US is at it's lowest level ever, gas turbines run all the time while coal plants are being shut down, and the fields could supply twice as much gas as is being consumed.

USA used to seriously lag in CO2 reduction, but since natural gas is the least CO2-producing fossil fuel, they are now beating all their targets and by the end of the decade will likely have reduced CO2 output faster than Germany.

Quote:
And that all the energy is sponsored with taxdollars aint helping either.
Fracking is almost entirely private-sector driven.

Quote:
It doesnt help if your energy cost 25% less, if you use twice as much of it to do the same thing.
Doesn't cost 25% less. The mean cost of electricity in the grid in the US is now 8 US c/kWh, compared to 31 in Germany or ~20 in UK and France. And, for a lot of industrial use, natgas is better than electricity, and it is now more like 90% cheaper in the US.

Fracking will land in Europe too -- it's just that the regulatory environment is much slower, and most of the companies with experience in it's use presently have their hands full in the US and Canada.
Tuna-Fish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2012, 05:33 AM   #89
ShintaiDK
Diamond Member
 
ShintaiDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 9,540
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Hawk View Post
People cheat taxes in Denmark probably because taxes are insane in Denmark. There's what, a 50% income tax in Denmark? Not every country has ludicrous tax rates like that, so not every country will have companies driven to dodge taxes not out of greed but out of necessity. Oh, I'm sure they explore loopholes to exploit, but outright cheating shouldn't be terribly commonplace.
Cut the utter BS please. Company tax is very low. And companies cheat in tax even if its 1% and they cant get it to 0%.

You confuse personal tax with company tax. Plus the personal tax is alot lower than you think when you sue deductions. The 50% is utter nonsense. Taxrate is also progressive. My GF pays around 35% and I pay around 40% as relatively high payed. Unlike another place where you pay more in taxes the less you earn *cough*.

Also you get highly educated workers for free. Something thats a huge problem somewhere else. High unemployment, but companies cant hire the people they need because they aint qualified.



Kuwait Petroleum Corporation, Nestlé and Coca Cola for example havent payed taxes in 25 years. Kraft, Kelloggs, Fujitsu etc doesnt pay either. Somehow they all end up with a loss selling their products here, yet they still continue. The creativity is huge. Selling a bucket internally for a 1000$. Or the other way around with TVs for 20$. (Also known as transfer pricing.) Intel got a huge fine after they bought Giga and tried to use transfer pricing to cheat all the value iut of the country.

Last edited by ShintaiDK; 12-18-2012 at 05:50 AM.
ShintaiDK is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2012, 05:55 AM   #90
ShintaiDK
Diamond Member
 
ShintaiDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 9,540
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuna-Fish View Post
Doesn't cost 25% less. The mean cost of electricity in the grid in the US is now 8 US c/kWh, compared to 31 in Germany or ~20 in UK and France. And, for a lot of industrial use, natgas is better than electricity, and it is now more like 90% cheaper in the US.
I think you missed the point with cheap aint the same as good. Assuming you are right, it will only spell disaster for the US. Its much easier and better to just reduce the energy consumption since its directly wasted without any form of productivity or comfort.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuna-Fish View Post
Fracking is almost entirely private-sector driven.
They still get taxdollars. Did you really think otherwise?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1907178.html
http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/n...n_finds_decade

Direct funding, tax credits, subsidizing prices. Your cheaper price is an artificial price. You just pay the difference (And then some.) via the tax. Dont fool yourself.

Last edited by ShintaiDK; 12-18-2012 at 06:05 AM.
ShintaiDK is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2012, 05:53 PM   #91
Tuna-Fish
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 536
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShintaiDK View Post
I think you missed the point with cheap aint the same as good. Assuming you are right, it will only spell disaster for the US. Its much easier and better to just reduce the energy consumption since its directly wasted without any form of productivity or comfort.
I disagree. If energy is cheap enough, wasting it is not a problem. Conserving energy costs human work and effort, if the cost of acquiring more energy is cheaper than the cost of conservation (including all the externalities), then it's better to waste the energy.

Quote:
They still get taxdollars. Did you really think otherwise?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1907178.html
http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/n...n_finds_decade

Direct funding
Of R&D. I see nothing wrong in the government spending a lot of money to develop long-term energy solutions, whether we are talking about gas, solar or fusion.

Quote:
tax credits,
Giving temporary tax credits for fledgling industries to drive participation is also pretty much standard practice in most of the world. In fact, tax breaks for fracking are going to hit Europe pretty damn soon -- they have already been proposed in the UK and will be a major talking point on the mainland by the summer. Nat gas is a very cheap and easy way to hit the CO2 reduction standards that EU has agreed to, much cheaper than conservation or renevables. Once the shale gas reservers in the EU are properly surveyed, states are going to be falling over themselves to attract fracking operators, simply because of just how freaking awesome cheap energy is for the economy.

Quote:
subsidizing prices.
There have been no direct price subsidies of nat gas. There is no need, the prices are lower than ever without any.

Quote:
Your cheaper price is an artificial price. You just pay the difference (And then some.) via the tax. Dont fool yourself.
Note, I'm not American.

But no, their cheaper price is not paid by the tax. They way you talk about subsidies, it sounds like you think that Americans pay the difference between their energy costs and ours in their taxes, that is, to make nat gas 80% cheaper, they have to pay all that 80% in their taxes. This is simply not true in any way, shape or form.

By your link, the total DoE expenditure on fracking is something like 11B over 20 years. That includes all the research and the tax credits. The value of the created additional production is now something like $50B a year, when measured at the very low present prices. Fracking is estimated to be able to provide this level of production for at least 20 years. No matter how you dice that, that's a pretty damn good investment.
Tuna-Fish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2012, 06:20 PM   #92
ShintaiDK
Diamond Member
 
ShintaiDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 9,540
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuna-Fish View Post
I disagree. If energy is cheap enough, wasting it is not a problem. Conserving energy costs human work and effort, if the cost of acquiring more energy is cheaper than the cost of conservation (including all the externalities), then it's better to waste the energy.
So does making energy, nomatter the cost. The question is, do you want something else than putting your dollars on fire in an outdated energy sector? My electrcity bill with high energy prices and every single modern comfort is around 20$ a month. I could also pay 100$ or 200$. but I rather use the difference on something else than paying the utility company.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuna-Fish View Post
Of R&D. I see nothing wrong in the government spending a lot of money to develop long-term energy solutions, whether we are talking about gas, solar or fusion.
Putting taxdollars into developing outdated technology is bad. Also its an already established sector unlike solar for example. Plus its also susidize of the gas price. Meanign what you think is cheap aint so cheap as you think. Plus the R&D is wasted in obsolete technology. You didnt create hightech jobs, you created more poor mans jobs.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuna-Fish View Post
Giving temporary tax credits for fledgling industries to drive participation is also pretty much standard practice in most of the world. In fact, tax breaks for fracking are going to hit Europe pretty damn soon -- they have already been proposed in the UK and will be a major talking point on the mainland by the summer. Nat gas is a very cheap and easy way to hit the CO2 reduction standards that EU has agreed to, much cheaper than conservation or renevables. Once the shale gas reservers in the EU are properly surveyed, states are going to be falling over themselves to attract fracking operators, simply because of just how freaking awesome cheap energy is for the economy.
70 years or how long the tax credits have lasted aint temporary.

I doubt europe will touch fracking. I cant imagine it at all, its against what the europe wants.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuna-Fish View Post
There have been no direct price subsidies of nat gas. There is no need, the prices are lower than ever without any.
No, and its already proven otherwise. The energy sector in the US is anything but a free market.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuna-Fish View Post
But no, their cheaper price is not paid by the tax. They way you talk about subsidies, it sounds like you think that Americans pay the difference between their energy costs and ours in their taxes, that is, to make nat gas 80% cheaper, they have to pay all that 80% in their taxes. This is simply not true in any way, shape or form.

By your link, the total DoE expenditure on fracking is something like 11B over 20 years. That includes all the research and the tax credits. The value of the created additional production is now something like $50B a year, when measured at the very low present prices. Fracking is estimated to be able to provide this level of production for at least 20 years. No matter how you dice that, that's a pretty damn good investment.
The 11B$ is from 1980 to 2002. And it only covers direct subsidizing. The entire energy sector in the US is estimated to avoid costs in one way or the other for around 1.69T$ a year.

Also it doesnt add any value at all, more the opposite. You simply burn your dollars on energy instead of on something else that actually creates value.

Cheap got expensive.

Fracking subsidies include tax breaks, government funding into research, lost government revenue such as discounted drilling fees, and federally-subsidized external costs, such as health care expenses and environmental clean-up due to negative and harmful effects.

Its the taxpayer who sits with the bill in the last end. Nomatter how you try and turn it. Its anything but that dream of cheap energy you claim it is. Fracking belongs to the past. Outdated and obsolete.

Its no different than the trashfood americans fill themselves with. (I dont hope anyone feel bad about the wording.). But the corn subsidizing is the exact same problem. Soda and burgers are cheaper than real food. Meat is being washed in amonia to clear bacteria, simply because its cheaper to feed cows corn instead of grass. And who pays to make americans fat and suffer from a wide variarity of food related diseases? Taxpayers. The same people who cant afford proper food becaue they taxdollars is rerouted. And they end up paying even more for the medical needed on top. The same applies for the energy sector. I wouldnt br surprised if the real cost of electricity in the US was around 40-50c per Kw/h.

Last edited by ShintaiDK; 12-18-2012 at 06:34 PM.
ShintaiDK is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2012, 07:25 PM   #93
Nemesis 1
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,379
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShintaiDK View Post
Inefficient housing construction in terms of energy. Heat and AC energy is too cheap to make a change. And people just pay more over the long term due to this
Man you nailed it here . All housing should be below ground and water tight . In MN it gets cold . Most here have basements . Which we need . But my cousin built a new house . and put in a deep basement . Without any heat . It stays 55 deegrees in that basement . My shop I built 3 years ago has floor heating using a boiler . It cost alot to put in . If done correctly like I did mine . It cost 30 dollars a month to heat @ 67 degrees 24/7 . If I was forty I would tear down the present structure and go underground all the way . It would save me about 20,000 dollars over 20 years. Use 60" LCD TV as windows with camerias to the space outside. Tornado proof . Hail proof clean and efficient living Built to last.
Nemesis 1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2012, 10:00 PM   #94
ShintaiDK
Diamond Member
 
ShintaiDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 9,540
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemesis 1 View Post
Man you nailed it here . All housing should be below ground and water tight . In MN it gets cold . Most here have basements . Which we need . But my cousin built a new house . and put in a deep basement . Without any heat . It stays 55 deegrees in that basement . My shop I built 3 years ago has floor heating using a boiler . It cost alot to put in . If done correctly like I did mine . It cost 30 dollars a month to heat @ 67 degrees 24/7 . If I was forty I would tear down the present structure and go underground all the way . It would save me about 20,000 dollars over 20 years. Use 60" LCD TV as windows with camerias to the space outside. Tornado proof . Hail proof clean and efficient living Built to last.
You dont need to build below ground. You just need to build correctly.

Currently we live in a B2 rated home. We keep around 77F/25C inside year round. And we pay about 30$ a month. In 2 years we plan to move to a A1 rated home. It got automatic ventilation with heat exchangers. So its also healthy and gives a very comfy indoor climate to live in. No need to worry about humidity again. Floor heating everywhere etc. We doubt we gonna pay more than 10$ a month. Plenty of large tripple glazed windows for maximum natural light and insulation. Its also a prime example on how energy efficient construction will not only save you money every month. It will also give you alot better home to live in.

And people need to remember the same applies if you want to keep the heat out. Wasting $ on AC or heat. Still all about insulation. If your home leaks heat or cold.

Last edited by ShintaiDK; 12-18-2012 at 10:04 PM.
ShintaiDK is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2012, 10:08 PM   #95
Idontcare
Administrator
Elite Member
 
Idontcare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: 臺北市
Posts: 20,101
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShintaiDK View Post
You dont need to build below ground. You just need to build correctly.

Currently we live in a B2 rated home. We keep around 77F/25C inside year round. And we pay about 30$ a month. In 2 years we plan to move to a A1 rated home. It got automatic ventilation with heat exchangers. So its also healthy and gives a very comfy indoor climate to live in. No need to worry about humidity again. Floor heating everywhere etc. We doubt we gonna pay more than 10$ a month. Plenty of large tripple glazed windows for maximum natural light and insulation. Its also a prime example on how energy efficient construction will not only save you money every month. It will also give you alot better home to live in.

And people need to remember the same applies if you want to keep the heat out. Wasting $ on AC or heat. Still all about insulation. If your home leaks heat or cold.
What kind of square footage are you heating/cooling for $30/month? That is pretty impressive.
Idontcare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2012, 10:14 PM   #96
ShintaiDK
Diamond Member
 
ShintaiDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 9,540
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Idontcare View Post
What kind of square footage are you heating/cooling for $30/month? That is pretty impressive.
103m2. Or roughly 1100sqf. And thats with good ventilation from windows etc. Something that will be completely replaced in our next home due to heatexchangers and automatic ventilation. (Then you also avoid the little bit of cold draft.)

Radiators everywhere except the bathroom, floorheating there. (Next home will be floor heating only.)

The 30$ is in danish heat price. With tax, green tax and whatever on top. Had we lived in a G rated home. We could easily pay 400$ a month. Or suffer a coldish home.

To add we use around 3kw/h a day in electricity. Maybe 4 now its winter and dark outside. So lets upscale to 120kw/h a month.

Last edited by ShintaiDK; 12-18-2012 at 10:27 PM.
ShintaiDK is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2012, 02:26 AM   #97
OCGuy
Lifer
 
OCGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: CA
Posts: 26,455
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShintaiDK View Post
Dominance?

You mean burning coal for energy? I dont see how thats gonna help. If you noticed, cheap energy isnt nessesary good. And that all the energy is sponsored with taxdollars aint helping either. It doesnt help if your energy cost 25% less, if you use twice as much of it to do the same thing.
Again, you have no idea. Coal is leaving, our new-found oil and NG due to fracking just changed everything. It is one of the major stories in energy news in the world right now.
__________________
4670k @ 4.2
MSI Gaming GTX770 @ 1246/7500
OCGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2012, 04:19 AM   #98
blastingcap
Diamond Member
 
blastingcap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 5,554
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCGuy View Post
Again, you have no idea. Coal is leaving, our new-found oil and NG due to fracking just changed everything. It is one of the major stories in energy news in the world right now.
I work in energy. Let me assure you that there is a lot of hot air in those stories you read about oil. Gas is another matter, but oil, LMAO. The world burns way more oil than we discover and develop, each and every year. It is not by chance that prices per barrel have skyrocketed in the last decade. Average fuel efficiency of cars, trucks, planes, etc. are going up which blunts the effect, else we'd be paying even more per barrel. This is unlikely to change anytime soon because fracking is oil is expensive, and those costs get passed onto you. Gas is different because it's easier to get gas out of unconventional formations like shale, plus there is the huge influx of gas from new production in the U.S., as well as expansion in Qatar and elsewhere.

As for coal, the funny thing is that we might be slowly weaning ourselves off coal, but China is building a new coal plant seemingly every week. Global net gain = ???

Anyway energy policy is way more complicated than you might think, due to political and economic concerns. I think Europe went the right direction. America? Thank God we didn't get more drill baby drill b.s. People seem to think there are decades worth of oil just waiting to stick a straw into. It's not that easy, as the easy stuff has long been produced, with some exceptions due to environmental regulation. The remaining stuff is a chore to produce, and there isn't even that much of it. You might have 1 trillion barrels underground, but if it's not economically and technologically feasible to extract more than 10 billion barrels even $100/barrel, then really you only have 10 billion barrels. Does 10 billion barrels sound like a lot? It's not. The world burns through over 30 billion barrels per year--and demand keeps growing as populations grow. 10 billion barrels just delays the inevitable by another 4 months. And no we don't get to just keep our oil for ourselves; we are a net importer and that isn't going to change anytime soon. We'll just import slightly less, that's all. There is historical precedent: Alaska. 16 billion barrels over the course of a few decades. What did it do? It lowered our price per barrel by a few pennies. Yeah, a real game-changer all right. Lmao. 500 billion barrels is significant, though not a cure all. It buys you significant time to transition. 100 billion spread out over several decades of production would make a small dent and buy some time, but isn't really a game-changer in the global context. 10 billion spread out over the life of an oil field is a drop in the bucket. Republican energy policy is the worst. Yeah Obama wastes tons of it on solar subsidies and it's not clear we can compete with China in the long run when it comes to solar, but at least it's attempting to get off oil, unlike the numerically-challenged morons in the Republican party who think that 10 billion barrels means anything.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoFox View Post
We had to suffer polygonal boobs for a decade because of selfish corporate reasons.
Main: 3570K + R9 290 CF + Crucial 16GB 1866 + AsRock Extreme4 Z77 + Eyefinity 5760x1080 eIPS

NAS and HTPC/workstation: Supermicro MBD-X9SCM + G530 + 16GB ECC; ASUS P8B WS + i3-3220; 1.1TB of Intel/Crucial/Samsung SSDs + 26TB of WD/Hitachi HDDs

Last edited by blastingcap; 12-20-2012 at 04:32 AM.
blastingcap is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2012, 06:38 AM   #99
ShintaiDK
Diamond Member
 
ShintaiDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 9,540
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blastingcap View Post
As for coal, the funny thing is that we might be slowly weaning ourselves off coal, but China is building a new coal plant seemingly every week. Global net gain = ???
http://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/refshelf/ncp.pdf



I would say China is the least of the worries. Atleast they have a proper energy plan. Specially for renewable.

India is where the next big thing is happening. They gonna be an upcoming country hungry for power.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCGuy View Post
Again, you have no idea. Coal is leaving, our new-found oil and NG due to fracking just changed everything. It is one of the major stories in energy news in the world right now.
Sure thing....maybe in the US.
Is it news like this:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...ose-wells.html

Fracking is a fast way to destroy the land you live on. Not to mention fracking is the wrong solution for the problem. Its like giving medicine to cure a fat guy instead of exercise and proper food in the correct amount. Or to use chemicals to wash meat for bacteria instead of giving cows grass.

The US could with minimal effort half its energy consumption without losing anything. But I guess keep using more must be better...right? I dont know if you can see the utterly destructive mindset. Same goes for food for that matter. But that would mean energy (and food) companies would earn less. Better to sacrifice the country I guess.

And coal is anything but leaving.
http://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/refshelf/ncp.pdf

Last edited by ShintaiDK; 12-20-2012 at 07:48 AM.
ShintaiDK is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2012, 06:51 AM   #100
cytg111
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,129
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCGuy View Post
Again, you have no idea. Coal is leaving, our new-found oil and NG due to fracking just changed everything. It is one of the major stories in energy news in the world right now.
I wish you all would get on the same page as your own local RockStar(tm) Elan Musk, and drive this revolution in the frontseat rather than the back.
__________________
404
cytg111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.