>>
>> On Feb 29, 2008, at 11:02 PM, Apptech wrote:
>>
>>> Please tell me what you mean by rebate ?  Do you mean the
>>> manufacturer sold it for less, or taxpayers paid for part
>>> of your
>>> system ?  If taxpayers ponied up money, then the real the
>>> cost of the
>>> system must be the total cost , not the amount you paid.
>>
>> There's a logical error there.

No way.  Public subsidies are always theft and are always immoral.  
( One of my few axioms ) I will never be convinced that theft can be  
justified by semantics. This is a moral distinction and if you do not  
dig my morals, at least say so and do not ascribe it to some logical  
error.   cc

> Perhaps
>
> "If taxpayers ponied up money, then the real the cost of the
> system may lie somewhere between the real cost and the
> amount you paid, but may be even less than that range"
>
> ie your "must" assumed that the subsidy was arbitrary or
> capricious or pork-belly or similar. It can be and is
> argued, and the point is moot, that the subsidies in whole
> or in part reflect the value to 'the people' of you sourcing
> energy locally. At some level the opportunity cost of being
> able to delay installing new large scale generation plant
> may merit encouraging such investment. This also may reflect
> reductions in distribution infrastructure. Also, progress in
> developing more efficient mass solar, wind, wave or whatever
> alternative systems on larger scales may result in
> efficiencies if large plant upgrades can be delayed until
> higher efficincy / lower cost solutions are available. Like
> 'death from passive smoking' such gains or losses may be
> measured in incremental statistical effect rather than being
> able to point to a given power station that was installed
> year later with higher tech gear than could otherwise have
> been the case.
>
> Now, all the above may in practice be rubbish, or close
> enough to rubbish as not to matter. And may not. But the
> point is that it' easy to say 'subsidies are a direct and
> unproductive cost to the consumer'. Inarguably some are and
> many may be. But some do reflect real world actualities.
> Some factors are moderately intangible such as relief from
> dependance on "foreigh oil"  and attendant improvements in
> "national security" and "national pride" and ... .
>
> Agree?
>
>> I believe that energy costs will actually fall over time
>
> I do too. But I also believe that we may have to wait until
> Lunar Helium 3 fusion power comes on line in a widespread
> manner for this to happen.
>
> "Power so cheap it won't need to be metered".
>
> "It is not too much to expect that our children will enjoy
> in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter, will
> know of great periodic regional famines in the world only as
> matters of history, will travel effortlessly over the seas
> and under them and through the air with a minimum of danger
> and at great speeds, and will experience a lifespan far
> longer than ours as disease yields and man comes to
> understand what causes him to age."
> Lewis L. Strauss
> Speech to the National Association of Science Writers, New
> York City September 16th, 1954.
>
>
>
>             Russell
>
>
>
> -- 
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>
>
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist