Mt Whitney Zone Forums General Discussion Solar Energy

Really Ken, gas cost more here because of subsidies, eh. Hmmm...the Commex price is about $2.67/gallon. This price is good in Turkey, Central African Republic or US of A. Where's the subsidy? This is what people willing to pay for this plentiful commodity.

It's how it is taxed. See $3.60 gas in CA, <$3.00 in TX and whatever it is Europe.

No, Patton was not stopped because he ran out of fuel. The Supreme Allied Command decided, that it was in the best interest to allow the finite supply of fuel in Northwest Europe for Operation Market-Garden...and Patton was wily guy who never let his army totally run out of fuel. There was plenty of fuel in September 1944, there was plenty of shipping, after the Allies cleared the North Atlantic and Mediterranean in 1943 but there was not infrastructure. Cherbourg, Marseilles and Antwerp had not come on line and the Allies decided against a planned pause at the Seine to build supply dumps. See PLUTO, Normandy Beaches and Red Ball Express. Just like there is plenty of NG, Coal for cheap power generation. Your analogy is faulty.

According to this Bloomberg Report, Turkey currently has the most expensive gasoline - Turkey
Price per gallon of gasoline: $9.89, Rank by most expensive gas: 1

Follow this link for more info on gas prices around the world.

I was in Ireland in October. This Bloomberg report is for Q3 of 2013, and their price of $7.79/gallon seems about right.
Here's an old (2007) link to the subsidy...accurate it is.

This is often true, but not necessarily so. There are power sources that produce 24/7, in spite of the fact that power is needed much more during daylight hours.

Nuclear is a good example. What do you do with the power in the middle of the night? We don't have a battery system to store it, although the system in the state water project that pumps water uphill from one dam to the higher, to be used at a later time, functions sort of like a battery. But you could also use that unused, cheap, excess energy to crack water into hydrogen.

Most power systems have a power curve that is optimized for maximum efficiency at peak output. So it is cheaper and more efficient to run the system full-bore, than it is at half capacity. But you have to find uses for that power, perhaps hydrolysis is one.

We have two of those water storage "battery" systems near here, one to east one one to the west. San Louis Reservoir takes water from the Calif Aqueduct to fill the reservoir, then generates power when it drops back down to the O'Neill Forebay. The Helms project raises and drops water 1500' between Courtright and Wishon reservoirs.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste

you are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts:



http://www.generalgeorgepatton.us/ww2.html



http://books.google.com/books?id=RfJ_LL8...gas&f=false

The 250th Artilliary Men Remember:



There are many hundred other sources of what happened to Patton's Third Army on Sept 1. It is not disputed.

You might ask the following question: who owns those valleys that you mention?

The land that LADWP is proposing to build upon is land it already owns.

I'm curious how happy the Owens Valley residents would be if LADWP proposed a massive land acquisition? My guess would be a massive reaction of inappropriateness.

"Don't they have enough???" would be the likely rallying cry......

Ken - I believe most of that land is already publicly owned by either the DWP or the BLM. Real estate brokers in the area say that 97% of the land in the Eastern Sierra is publicly owned, primarily by the BLM, the USFS, the LADWP, the DOD or the USPS.

Here's a link to several wind projects proposed for the upper Mojave and Sonoran deserts.

LADWP already owns almost all the private land in Owens Valley, so there's nothing more to acquire. The "rally" ended long ago, but the crying continues.

I predict a lot more of these solar installations in the valley once this one proves to be a success. Rather than hide the panels as much as possible, they should be used to educate people on renewable energy - the benefits, challenges, and trade offs.

Damn, just learning about this Patton thing, eh. You needed to spend time finding links

Let's see I've read a couple of million words war in northwest Europe, Ken.

Patton never ran out of gas. No Army ran out of gas. Patton was stealing gas from Hodges and utilizing captured supplies. Did he have what he wanted...no. He had what Supreme Allied Command gave him to take a defensive posture. You probably are not aware the terrain of northwest Europe favored advances by 21st Army Group, not 12th. Patton choose to push the limits of his supplies and then some hoping to get Eisenhower to give him more fuel, which is what Patton did. Supplies favored Montgomery for his push into Germany through Arnhem.

BTW, the shortage of gas and supplies was anticipated the moment they crossed the Seine and chased the Germans across France. This happens all the time in war. See the Soviets on the Vistula and Oder; and to the United States in GW II. Don'cha know the operational plan of Overlord? I did mention it. How many trucks does it to to provision a field army that is 60 miles away? How many when it is 400?

What do you think about a Patton offense toward Frankfort on Main? You know the one with no gas and a manpower shortage as the front lines became 2 miles longer for every mile of advance since the would have had to have put 21st Army Group plus the US 1st and 9th Armies and 6th Army Group on the defensive. The port of Antwerp was not operational until November 30th, 1944. The war was destined to be over in 1945.

Gee, no comment on how the price of gasoline works, eh.

Let's see: I provided links to the official George Patton site, the official artillary site, as well as a general history site.

You have provided NO links, whatsoever.

So what are you asking for links? YOU provide some links.

Here is one by the people running the Red Ball Express, US Army Quartermaster Foundation
Fort Lee, Virginia:

http://www.qmfound.com/pol.htm

Captain Daniel G. Grassi

Quartermaster Professional Bulletin - Summer 1993



WB, until YOU start to post some links that support your position, you're the odd man out.

You may have read one million books on the subject. It doesn't mean that you understood any of it.

I have no doubt of that. But my point that the land is NOT owned by LADWP, and would have to be acquired, still stands.

The politics of LADWP acquiring a large amount of land in the Owens Valley would be poisonous, to say the least, would probably take years, and would be fought tooth and nail by the residents of OV, just out of spite.

Why do I have to provide links, Ken? Just read Weigley, Ambrose, D'este, Pogue, Blumenson, Eisenhower, Hastings, Kershaw, Brown and many I have failed to mention. I am not going to waste my time with websites on a subject I know thoroughly.

It's all common knowledge that Patton was put in a defensive position and Allies would run short of supplies once they crossed the Seine. You seem to be avoiding this issue like Superman avoids Kryponite.

There was this thing called the Transportation Plan the Allies employed in May 1944 to isolate the Norman battlefield. This destroyed bridges and railroads. As I mentioned, there was suppose to be an operational pause. Once they crossed the Seine they knew they were going to bog down, like all Armies do when the out race their abilities to supplies. Hmmm...funny how, you have not mentioned Crerar, Dempsay, Hodges and Truscott and their fuel situation. I digress...Patton refused to go on the defensive against order which exacerbated his problems. Again, there were plenty of fuel in Europe. The problem was one of distribution...and you can't distribute all that swell when you ain't got bridges or railroads.

The United States Army stripped its newly arrived mechanized infantry division of their trucks so, they could chase the Germans as far and as long as they could, knowing full well all good things come to an end. For Patton this was Lorraine, Montgomery, it was a bridge too far and Hodges met his match in the Hurtgen. Allies could not campaign without fuel getting to the troops...PLUTO was not cutting it with an expanding US Army. Hmmmm...Bomber Command, Fighter Command, Costal Command, 8th, 9th, and 15th USAA could fly with no restrictions on fuel.

The problem was port facilities. Cherbourg was small and did not open to September, Antwerp was taken early but Monty in his infinte wisdom decided it was in best interest to meet the reconstituted German Army in Holland rather than clear the Scheldt Estuary in Belgium. Marseilles was too far away for 21st and 12th Army Groups.

You have to have an operational pause to allow supplies to be accumulated. Do yourself a favor and read Glantz's "When Titans Met", this will give a working idea how all the big battles of Europe fought in WW II. Be it deep penetration, blitzkreig or mobile operations...it was run until you could run no more then wait as your supplies were replenished...I did mention the Oder and Vistula, didn't I. Patton could run no more in Lorraine, Hodges in a bloody forest and Montgomery at the Lower Rhine. BTW, when was the next Allied big offensive? September...no, October...no, November...no, December and January...See Battle of Bulge, February...yeppers. Where they went all the way to the Elbe, crossing at Barby in late March or early April...see 2nd Armor and 83rd ID.

Wanna tell me how Patton would have ended the war in 1944? You seem to be the Pattonophile.

Hmmmm...How's about that price on gasoline works thing? No comment,eh.

This WWII history stuff is interesting, but it seems a bit off the topic of solar energy in California. Just saying.

Guys, WWII stuff is so far off topic that it's ridiculous. Let's get the discussion back to current times and related to Solar, etc.

interesting news. I was also recently in Palm Springs (after Mount San Jacinto again!) and I was surprised to see so many more wind turbines down there. It was like a forest of them!

Steve,

I've tried 2 or 3 times to bring it back to solar...errr...oil...errr...gasoline. Ken doesn't want to substantial his assertion that price of gasoline is subsidized in this country. I offered up a recent COMEX price for unleaded as a basis.

I did not take this neither to oil nor WW II, others did. I just stated the Patton analogy was faulty.

I will go back to...if you subsidize solar or wind, for that matter. What are you willing to give up? The EU is a little pissy with the UK these days for the folly of subsidizing wind power at 3 times the wholesale price.

All this does is make the rich richer at the expense of those who can least afford it. I thought the group of folks who champion this kind of thing also champion income inequality...just saying. You can't have both, these interest compete.

Hey WBT, you never commented on the $4 billion a year in tax breaks that go to the oil companies. Of the 10 largest corporations in America, 4 of them are oil companies. Talk about the rich getting richer.

Wind power is the fastest growing new energy source because it is economically viable on it's own. With the recent big drops in solar panel costs, PV is also booming.

There are subsidies for homeowners to install solar panels, but that's not causing the rich to get richer. And the power companies are mostly happy because it keeps them from having to build new power plants to handle peak loads. Peak solar power just happens to coincide with peak demand in the heat of the summer, so this is a win win situation. But at some point, solar will mature and hit a critical mass where subsidies should be phased out. Now if we can only phase out the oil company tax breaks...

I am trying to understand the two sides of this discussion. Feel free to clarify if I am not comprehending correctly.

Ken: Oil companies are subsidized via tax breaks (enough links are available to substantiate this fact. Bee) Therefore, this financial support/break allows petrol companies to sell/charge artificially lowered petrol prices.

WBTravis: Petrol isn't subsidized at the refined/consumer level, so the product is not artificially price-adjusted. Therefore, Solar viewed as more economical is seen as such because it IS subsidized?

Please state your positions in a few sentences, so I can evaluate what both of you are conveying (I have gotten lost in the long paragraphs)

SN,

Which tax breaks are they and how do the differ from any other business? Tax breaks are not subsidies.

We have a Frankenstein monster of a tax system, which allow politicians to reward their friends allies. I would be very happy with zero corporate tax and a consumption individuals tax...all the games go away. All corporations do is a act as tax collection agency for the government. Only people pay taxes.

Again, what does oil have to do with power generation?