Economic Stimulus Idea

[alien42]

Originally posted by: JS80
Costs will not come down. Solar panels are made with very rare and expensive commodities. Increasing their demand will further cause the cost to increase.

with an attitude like that humans would never progress and new technologies would never be developed. you should stay in your cave and let those with vision handle the real world problems.

 

[Budmantom]

A great stimulus plan would be building nuclear power plants, that is cheap power and it would create jobs.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: Rustler
What happens when the SUN dosen't shine or the Wind doesn't blow? It also uses more energy to produce these products than they generate back.........................one windmill uses 235 tons of steel you have to mine the metal and smelt it, how much enviromental damage does that do?

We need fusion reactors to sustain the population on this planet not the BS this govenment is feeding us.

Green plolicies=genoicide, back to the dark ages.

Fission power is just fine. Fusion will be nice if it turns out to be viable, but that is 50-100 years away.

 

[JACKDRUID]

Originally posted by: Rustler
What happens when the SUN dosen't shine or the Wind doesn't blow? It also uses more energy to produce these products than they generate back.........................one windmill uses 235 tons of steel you have to mine the metal and smelt it, how much enviromental damage does that do? .

1. if sun doesn't shine or wind doesn't blow, we'd be all dead, so it doesn't matter,, and your point is irrelevent.

2. energy output will be > production cost

3. 235 tons of steal = recyclable, not much environmental damage.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-
QuantumPion is correct.

Those who disagree are lefties who believe the government can better spend your money than you for purposes of economic stimulus.

Fern

I don't believe that at all, but I do believe along with a number of acclaimed economists that government spending can and does stimulate an economy and weaken recessions.

But hey, don't let that get in the way of your sweeping and ridiculous generalizations.

The phrase of yours I've underlined is bogus and irrelevent.

Can government spending stimulate an economy? Of course, no one's is arguing that.

The question is does government spending stimulate better than consumer spending? Because if the government takes taxpayer (so they can't spend it), so it (the gov) can spend it.

Thanks for stating the obvious - despite not spelling it exactly out, I was referring to the comparison of government vs. consumer spending. Government spending naturally implies the money was/will be taxed out of consumer hands.

No need to act silly and try to mis-characterize the question. This very question (gov spedning vs peoples' spending for stimulus) recently came up during the stimulus bill and the Dem's theory is that gov spending is better than peoples on the basis people may use it to pay off lanks loans (Of course that begs the question of why isn't an infusion of capital to banks from people themselves as good as peoples' money passing through to the government who then infuse money to banks, but that's another topic).

Wrong. If that were the basis for stimulus, a huge chunk of it wouldn't be going into the public sector and infrastructure. The over-arching reason, again not backed by a bunch of commies, but by respected economists, is that in a recession, government spending has a way of catching the falling dagger. Yes, the theory is that money is better in government hands during these times than in peoples', as it acts as stabilizing force against the spiraling effect of panic in consumer confidence. In fact, government spending is perhaps the biggest reason we have not since suffered a recession even close to the scale of the GD. Spouting worthless rhetoric like "I spend my money better than the government" probably makes for great applause lines at teabag parties, but is completely ignorant of consumer behavior in bad economic times.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: JS80
Costs will not come down. Solar panels are made with very rare and expensive commodities. Increasing their demand will further cause the cost to increase.

Nonsense. Increased demand fuels innovation. Someone will develop a method of producing better solar panels using cheaper materials.

Jeebus, if the recent demand causing silicon prices to rise by 10 times (what's that, a thousand percent) couldn't makes us find this magic 'innovation' what the h3ll is it gonna take?

No, more than sufficient demand exists, no more is now necessary.

Fern

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

So we agree, the stimulus plan didn't work in Japan.

.

No, we don't. The entire point was that Japan did not stimulate their economy in a timely or adequate manner. The example that you brought up actually perfectly undermines the point you're trying to make. Now do you have any real arguments to bring to the table besides pretending everyone agrees with you?

 

[giantjoebot]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: giantjoebot
Economic Stimulus Idea

I have an idea that would help our countries economy grow through investing in solar panels.
-snip-
Basic economics shows that if you increase the demand companies will increase production and the price will drop. So this will make solar panels cheaper, and stimulate the American solar panel industry. The United States could become the world leader in solar panel production.

Third, it will reduce energy consumption, which should reduce energy costs for everyone else.

"Basic economics show.."

Stop right there. OP, that's your problem with this idea. Under this assumption increasing demand for oil/gasoline would bring a price drop, but it doesn't does it?

Why is that? Because your "basic economics" stuff doesn't take into account limited resources.

Read this. The problem hasn't been a lack of demand for (photovoltaic) solar panels, rather the demand has been vastly outstripping supply. So your poposal to increase demand is misplaced IMO.

We've just come through a period where the cost of processed silicon for use in (photovoltaic) solar panels became 10 times more expensive because of demand exceeding supply.

New processing plants are soon coming on-line, ONLY if those have excess capacity should anybody even consider stimulating demand.

The ecess demand over the last several put many here in the US out of work, quite the opposite of your objective. As the demand outpaced the supply, those contractors in the US just couldn't get product to install, business fell and people went unemployed (and worse). More demand surely won't help increase jobs.

BTW: energy consumption won't drop. It might shift the source of energy generation, but it won't affect levels of consumption. We may need fewer increases in coal generated energy to meet increased consumption, but that's it.

Fern

Actually basic economics does cover oil and medication. Its call elasticity. This is not an inelastic product. Without demand supply won't rise, and prices won't drop.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: JS80
Costs will not come down. Solar panels are made with very rare and expensive commodities. Increasing their demand will further cause the cost to increase.

Nonsense. Increased demand fuels innovation. Someone will develop a method of producing better solar panels using cheaper materials.

Jeebus, if the recent demand causing silicon prices to rise by 10 times (what's that, a thousand percent) couldn't makes us find this magic 'innovation' what the h3ll is it gonna take?

No, more than sufficient demand exists, no more is now necessary.

Fern

Um, research takes time?

 

[giantjoebot]

I actually do agree that the government spends money on things that it shouldn't

I'm actually a registered Libertarian, and believe in smaller government, but this is something I believe the government could spend my money on, and it would be justified. Kind of like roads.

And their going to try and stimulate the economy, whether you like it or not. This is just the best possible way that I could think of for them to do so.

Wow, I almost went off topic there. I actually have my own political, social, and economic views that I want to express, but that would be off topic.

 

[giantjoebot]

Also cheap solar panels would be good for the economy. If their cheaper than more people can buy them, and those people can save money on energy cost. Those saving can be spent on other things further helping the economy.

 

[JS80]

Yea and I want world peace and unicorns but it ain't happening.

 

[GoPackGo]

You want real stimulus?

Build Nuke Power Plants.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: Budmantom

So we agree, the stimulus plan didn't work in Japan.

.

No, we don't. The entire point was that Japan did not stimulate their economy in a timely or adequate manner. The example that you brought up actually perfectly undermines the point you're trying to make. Now do you have any real arguments to bring to the table besides pretending everyone agrees with you?

lol.. you are something

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: Budmantom

So we agree, the stimulus plan didn't work in Japan.

.

No, we don't. The entire point was that Japan did not stimulate their economy in a timely or adequate manner. The example that you brought up actually perfectly undermines the point you're trying to make. Now do you have any real arguments to bring to the table besides pretending everyone agrees with you?

lol.. you are something

Another non-argument from budmantom, shocker.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: Budmantom

So we agree, the stimulus plan didn't work in Japan.

.

No, we don't. The entire point was that Japan did not stimulate their economy in a timely or adequate manner. The example that you brought up actually perfectly undermines the point you're trying to make. Now do you have any real arguments to bring to the table besides pretending everyone agrees with you?

lol.. you are something

Another non-argument from budmantom, shocker.

I said the stimulus didn't work in Japan and you said it didn't work but you disagree with me...

like I said it's unanimous

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: Budmantom

So we agree, the stimulus plan didn't work in Japan.

.

No, we don't. The entire point was that Japan did not stimulate their economy in a timely or adequate manner. The example that you brought up actually perfectly undermines the point you're trying to make. Now do you have any real arguments to bring to the table besides pretending everyone agrees with you?

lol.. you are something

Another non-argument from budmantom, shocker.

I said the stimulus didn't work in Japan and you said it didn't work but you disagree with me...

like I said it's unanimous

You can't even remotely compare Japan's stimulus to ours, to the point where theirs wouldn't even be considered stimulus. The fact that you're trying to play "gotcha" on these meaningless semantics says it all - the debate was about whether government spending always has a negative effect on the economy, and you just don't have an argument there.

 

[Oceandevi]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
You want real stimulus?

Build Nuke Power Plants.

We could do this.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: Rustler
What happens when the SUN dosen't shine or the Wind doesn't blow? It also uses more energy to produce these products than they generate back.........................one windmill uses 235 tons of steel you have to mine the metal and smelt it, how much enviromental damage does that do?

We need fusion reactors to sustain the population on this planet not the BS this govenment is feeding us.

Green plolicies=genoicide, back to the dark ages.

Fusion research is essential, as are more nuclear power plants and waste reprocessing.

However, solar power is perfect in some very common situations - think air conditioning and lighting of an office building or shopping center during business hours for example. Power usage is much higher during the day.

At night, demand drops off.

 

[cubeless]

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: Budmantom

So we agree, the stimulus plan didn't work in Japan.

.

No, we don't. The entire point was that Japan did not stimulate their economy in a timely or adequate manner. The example that you brought up actually perfectly undermines the point you're trying to make. Now do you have any real arguments to bring to the table besides pretending everyone agrees with you?

lol.. you are something

Another non-argument from budmantom, shocker.

I said the stimulus didn't work in Japan and you said it didn't work but you disagree with me...

like I said it's unanimous

You can't even remotely compare Japan's stimulus to ours, to the point where theirs wouldn't even be considered stimulus. The fact that you're trying to play "gotcha" on these meaningless semantics says it all - the debate was about whether government spending always has a negative effect on the economy, and you just don't have an argument there.

1) quit calling it 'government spending'... it is 'wealth redistribution'... most of the 'stimulus' package is only stimulating the reelection of incumbent democrats...
2) a big part of the japan problem is that they didn't reform the banking system and let the bad banks fail (for slightly different, but no less bad reasons as our politicians did)...

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: giantjoebot

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

Actually basic economics does cover oil and medication. Its call elasticity. This is not an inelastic product. Without demand supply won't rise, and prices won't drop.

giantjoebot,

Regarding inelasticity - do a little internet research and see if you can found who supplies the silicon for processing and how US suppliers they are.

(hint: There's just one, they are near me in NC and are the only US company granted a legal monopoly by the US Justice Department).

Inelasticity? That's obviously the problem. Where it not for inelasticity prices wouldn't wouldn't have shot up by a factor of 10.

Part of the problem is the supply of raw SIO2 (only one domestic suplier unless something schanged in the last 3 or 4 years), the other is processing and that is very difficult and expensive.

Do you guys know how you get the SIO2 to the required .9999999 (IIRC it's 7 nines) purity?

The cleaner ones inject carbon into the process to 'mate' with the O2 and free up the SI. Know what that is? Yep, the process creats lots of CO2, the current boogeyman for the left.

I predict when they figure this out we'll have protest about it.

Fern

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: cubeless

Originally posted by: Mani
You can't even remotely compare Japan's stimulus to ours, to the point where theirs wouldn't even be considered stimulus. The fact that you're trying to play "gotcha" on these meaningless semantics says it all - the debate was about whether government spending always has a negative effect on the economy, and you just don't have an argument there.

1) quit calling it 'government spending'... it is 'wealth redistribution'... most of the 'stimulus' package is only stimulating the reelection of incumbent democrats...
2) a big part of the japan problem is that they didn't reform the banking system and let the bad banks fail (for slightly different, but no less bad reasons as our politicians did)...

1. Uh, the entire debate was about government spending and whether it is a drag on the economy. How about you quit regurgitating AM radio talking points. Have you looked at the stimulus package? Do you have any idea even what its major line items are?
2. There was initial reluctance to let them fail but within a couple years, they did. It's widely recognized that the largest problem at the time was their half-assedness in disposing of bad assets and unwillingness to use public funds to do anything about it. All you need to do is compare our response to the S&L crisis and Japan's lack thereof to see what happens when the government sits on their hands instead of responding aggressively to a crisis.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: Budmantom

So we agree, the stimulus plan didn't work in Japan.

.

No, we don't. The entire point was that Japan did not stimulate their economy in a timely or adequate manner. The example that you brought up actually perfectly undermines the point you're trying to make. Now do you have any real arguments to bring to the table besides pretending everyone agrees with you?

lol.. you are something

Another non-argument from budmantom, shocker.

I said the stimulus didn't work in Japan and you said it didn't work but you disagree with me...

like I said it's unanimous

You can't even remotely compare Japan's stimulus to ours, to the point where theirs wouldn't even be considered stimulus. The fact that you're trying to play "gotcha" on these meaningless semantics says it all - the debate was about whether government spending always has a negative effect on the economy, and you just don't have an argument there.

I like how the topic keeps changing.....

Here is what I'm saying and I'll dumb it down for you.... the government doesn't spend efficiently and taking money from the private sector for the government to blow on pet projects and letting them pick the winners and losers in this economy is a travesty.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: giantjoebot

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

Actually basic economics does cover oil and medication. Its call elasticity. This is not an inelastic product. Without demand supply won't rise, and prices won't drop.

giantjoebot,

Regarding inelasticity - do a little internet research and see if you can found who supplies the silicon for processing and how US suppliers they are.

(hint: There's just one, they are near me in NC and are the only US company granted a legal monopoly by the US Justice Department).

Inelasticity? That's obviously the problem. Where it not for inelasticity prices wouldn't wouldn't have shot up by a factor of 10.

Part of the problem is the supply of raw SIO2 (only one domestic suplier unless something schanged in the last 3 or 4 years), the other is processing and that is very difficult and expensive.

Do you guys know how you get the SIO2 to the required .9999999 (IIRC it's 7 nines) purity?

The cleaner ones inject carbon into the process to 'mate' with the O2 and free up the SI. Know what that is? Yep, the process creats lots of CO2, the current boogeyman for the left.

I predict when they figure this out we'll have protest about it.

Fern

Float zone growth? But with that said we don't need SEVEN (7) 9s of purity. I believe it's seven including the 99, so it's 99.99999% purity, but that's semiocnductor grade pretty much. 4N, 5N is pretty much good enough. Furthermore, I believe that multi-crystalline Si is suitable with decent efficiencies. It's what you see marketed the most actually.

Finally, you have solar giant First Solar. CdTe is not exactly the best IMO but thin films is the cheap way to go. In fact I would like to say that it's the future, although it's probably the most challenging field. Si cells are easy to make, and semiconductor equipment guys can do it very nicely, but thin film? Personally, I believe that CIGS should be the way to go. Sure I may work at a CIGS company, but I went over a lot of this stuff in school and what not. CIGS, like CdTe is a lot cheaper than crystalline Si and has a lot of mass production advantages. The trick is refining the process.

I do actually think that solar is one of the easiest ways for us to get going. Thin film panels are LIGHT AS HELL. They're not a thick glass brick like the Si cells. A lot of people could easily mount these cells on their roofs.

Even though this sounds cool, it's probably unrealistic, but I'm all for the government throwing out some money to my company =)

 

[Fern]

Yeah, I wrote it wrong it's 99.99999

But the company I was involved was aiming for 7N.

I looked and now see others making cells with lower grade, but I'd guess the efficiency suffers.

(I think your'e going want higher than 7N for semiconducters, but I haven't worked in that area so personally don't know for sure. Maybe depends on thetype of SC?)

Did notice some new processes for purity seem to have popped up. That's a good thing; they seem 'cleaner' and less expensive .

Yeah, I'd like to see the gov throw some money to you guys in the thin film segment. I don't why they shouldn't, I thought was part of Obama's plan.

Good luck to your company

Fern