So.. Let me see if I understand you....

You say "Let's limit government when there are clear problems."

This is not a limit. You can invent a "clear problem" to cover any expenditure by digging out the example of why you don't care if you don't support that "clear problem" x doesn't deserve a government solution.

So, unless you can define "clear problem" to be somehow limited, I don't think you've put any limits on government out of principle. You have said that it's up to me coming up with a definition that YOU would agree is a "clear problem". Problem with this is there are PLENTY of problems out in the world, many are clearly defined, but most have no practical solution. You see this is the logic used to bludgeon the right when we start talking about even reducing the growth of government. The horror! You'd cut funding for Children?!? You must be uncaring bad people to want to do that... (see where this goes with your definition?)

Also, this is NOT one of the principles upon which the USA was founded. "Clear problem" is not part of our founding documents and is a nebulous squishy statement that you and I could not use to come to an agreement about what the principled thing to do is. In fact, I would content that this is EXACTLY what the left does. They make the case that some social program needs to be done, then we get regaled by stories about how "Julia" has a cradle to grave dependance on government and all would be great if we just could have this one last things.. (The last of which is Obama Care, and look how messed up that is)

As to the rest of your post about military spending and all the rest, you are barking up the absolute wrong tree. I'm not saying the military doesn't waste a lot of money, only that it's not where the majority of the money gets wasted. It may be a "waste" to you, but I caution you that out of all the things the Federal Government spends on "The common defense" is just about the ONLY thing it has a constitutional mandate to spend money on. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Education, etc are things we've added long after the framers where dead and buried.

So, do you have an REAL limits to what government should do? How far can it go to address a "Clear Problem"? Or do you wish to refine that limit some more? I hope you do, because for now, it's not really a limit and unlimited government is not in anybodies best interest.

OK, so are you going to build a plant that is profitable TODAY or one that won't break even for decades?

Wind/Solar both are *MORE* expensive to build and operate 30 years (fuel included) than a NG plant. This means the renewables have their costs UP FRONT, which is a serious problem for them. This means (all things being equal) you have to finance nearly ALL your development costs. Banks and bond holders expect to get their money back with interest so that windmill needs to be able to turn out enough energy to make the payments. Right now, interest rates are extremely low, but this won't last much longer. Those renewable operators who try to refinance their debt are going to be in a serious world of hurt in a year or so when interest rates start to rise.

Your NG plant builder faces much lower up front costs. He finances a lot less capital and can start turning a profit a lot sooner. Yes, he pays for fuel, but he does so over time, as an expense related to the cost of making what he sells. It's not capital equipment, it's cost of sales. This guy is poised to make money on his investment in a few years, where the windmill operator has a decade or more to wait, while the long term bonds and bank loans get paid back.

About all I can say for Solar (pv) and Wind, is that if you can finance long term it at today's interest rates, you might be poised to clean up on paper once inflation kicks in. But you could make even more money on paper in currency trading in that case and you'd be better off just investing in gold...

But, this so called rush to renewables is really just a government induced fad. There are special tax treatments and financing rules given to renewables. there has to be, or they'd not be even close to making financial sense. These government props can get kicked out at any time and would pretty much drive the operators of these renewable energy collectors into bankruptcy. A whole lot of people would loos their shirts, their lively hoods, and we would have a plight of industrial blight to deal with, taking down the abandoned windmills and solar arrays that would make the EPA super fund sites of yore look tame in cost.

Take out inflation and average throughout the year. Doesn't look too bad to me. Especially the last decade. The Peak price this year is 1/3rd the peak price of the last 10 years, with the lowest price showing similar ratios. Last year we bounced off of 2 and 5 and currently are between these two.

You do understand that the big spikes are related to variations in demand and to the variations in competitive fuel stocks right? It also seem to be pretty much peaking in winter, which is a huge surprise right? (um not to me). But the real problem with your side of the argument (and for your cool chart) is that with the advent of fracking and the development of the new NG resources this technology allows has driven the price down.

What your chart really says is that it's not a good idea to invest in NG wells. They are NOT going to be making lots of money selling gas. However, it IS a good time to be investing in infrastructure that burns the stuff. Or, if we can manage it, invest in technology to STORE natural gas. Prices more than doubled from the spring lows to the winter highs (and it was a cold winter) so there is quite a bit of possible money to be made on that.

And that's why industry is telling itself that Natural Gas is the play for the next decade. It's going to be a cheap fuel for a long time. Spikes in price are expected, but the average cost is going to be pretty much consistently where it is now (allowing for inflation).

Not going to argue the logic, except to say that unless you have some water to pump up hill, it's not viable. This is the desert south west here at the Hoover Dam... There isn't much to pump up hill and right now they are fighting over what's left in Lake Mead because people need to drink something...

So, I would suggest that there are better locations for this kind of thing, preferably some place with more water to be pumping.... I believe there was something almost exactly like this in MO...

All I can say is you are falling for the hype and not the actual facts.

1. There are exactly ZERO places you can swap you battery quickly, and it takes more than 1 min, even when Tesla demonstrated the fast change could be done. The cost of this service is yet to be fully documented, as is how exactly it would end up working.

As to the REST, I'm taking my prices from the WikiPedia page for the Model S as follows:

1. Short range (sub 200 mile range) 60Kw/h battery car = $69,000 (no frills)

2. Long Range (just over 200 miles) 85Kw/h battery base car = $79,900 (no frills)

3. Long Range (Just over 200 Miles) 85Kw/h battery premium car = $93,400

4. Internal Quick Charger = $2,500 (60Kw/h car only)

5. Home Charger = $2K? (Best guess installed)

6. +10 Year battery Warranty = $10,000

7. Warranty years 4-8 = $4,000

So, if you buy the big battery and a home charger you are into $100K (Tax, title, license, warranties) and this car MIGHT be able to do 200 miles on a charge, and still will only let you recharge overnight. If you want the "performance" model, add another $13K.

This is well beyond what a lot of people pay for their HOUSES so it's not a practical car.

I get that, the problem is that once you release the water from Hoover Dam, where does it go? Down stream. Next stop is about 30 Km down stream and 439 feet lower in elevation, with only part of that being useable head for Hoover's generators. Won't be efficient.

But, you are missing my point, there isn't any water up or down stream from Hoover Dam, at least not enough to make it worth while to pump it into lake Mead then release it for power generation later. Besides, the ISSUE right now with Lake Mead is water for drinking and farming. There simply isn't enough for that much less doing very much electric generation.

My last car was $24K brand new (not doing that again though) . You want me to pay 3x that price for a Tesla? Not to mention that your price is about $25K too low. If you buy a Model S, with the big battery, internal fast charger and a home charging station (which is absolutely necessary if you intend to actually USE the car daily) you are going to be over $120K or so which is 5x what my last car cost and well beyond what 99.99% of us can afford to pay for a car.

Not going to do it. WAY too many reasons and it starts with PRICE. No way I'm making the payments on a Tesla and paying my mortgage too. No way I'm driving a car with maybe a 200 mile range and then takes 30 min to "refuel" for the next 100 miles. No way I'm buying a car that I cannot quickly refuel where the in-laws live, even though I could GET there on a charge, I'd be stuck there for the duration of the charging process using 110V15A extension cord, and believe you me, that's TOO long there. (3.7 miles per HOUR of charge! Ouch, I'm going to be there at least 1.5 days to get my empty battery back to 200 miles capacity...)

No, Tesla's are mostly for show, for the people who can afford to spend $100K on a toy. Few buy them for actually DRIVING someplace except for maybe work and back. Can you imagine trying to drive one of these cross country? Portland to LA? I'm sure it would be an adventure, but if all you got was 200 miles per charge, you are going to be on the road a LONG time.

A and B are obviously true, although A is arguable in practical ways. Creating methane is not that hard. I agree with you on B, Natural Gas is better suited to other things (motor fuel and heating) but it is a CLEAN source of heat to generate electricity from and that's why it's being used, well that and it burns really clean compared to other fuels.

However, C is where we really part company. Short term, Natural Gas is NOT going to rise in price. In fact the projections are for steady to falling natural gas prices for at least a decade. We can only build out the available gas fields so fast and fracking has made much more natural gas recoverable. We've not even started exploiting this resource. Eventually, Natural Gas WILL increase in cost, but that increase will only make MORE of this resource economically recoverable. Assuming no spikes in demand or massive disruptions in supply infrastructure, Natural Gas will continue to be CHEAP for at least the next 5 years, and likely will only slightly outpace inflation for the next few decades.

On the rest, you miss my point. The rich who can afford a Tesla, may be concerned with the environment, but apparently they are NOT willing to change their lifestyle in order to really do some good. They buy Tesla's for show, to prove they are environmentally responsible. They cry crocodile tears for the polar bears and penguins, but still insist on huge homes, high flying aircraft with carbon foot prints equivalent to 10 times my family's while imploring me to conserve more. Personally, I'm not impressed. These same folks then implore that I change MY lifestyle or agree to pay more to keep my lights on, but they consume more resources than I can even dream about, but they get a pass because they own a Tesla?

This Tesla renewable claim is about PR, it's about their brand name. It's not about reality, because you can bet that the CEO will have the AC cranked up in his office if he's uncomfortable...

Maybe windmills COULD do what you say, not going to argue that, but when the wind isn't blowing what are you going to do? In the middle of the night or on a cloudy day? Where are you going to get your electric power from?

You are going to burn fossil fuels to generate electricity, that's what you are going to do.

So build your windmills and put up your solar panels, we will still need the fossil fueled plants to make up the difference and don't fool yourself, what you are doing costs MORE.

No, I'm saying Congress should be writing the law, including what we now do in "regulation" themselves and not ceding this responsibility to others. Congress has created way to many of these entities, and needs to do away with some of them and severely limit the scope of the rest. So if we deem the IRS or the FCC necessary, they can stay, but we need to CAREFULLY think though the authorizations used to justify them and keep only what's necessary to fulfill the constitutional purpose of the Federal government and toss the rest by taking the 10th amendment seriously.

Huh? Who said THAT?!?!

Are you trollin or somethin here?

As I understand "original intent" it is what I'm arguing FOR.

Shesh, What do you THINK matters to me? You question my motives, yet you don't answer the posed question. You dismiss, with no real evidenced, that your opinion of conservatives are somehow unfeeling and don't care. That is offensive to conservatives, who care very much about these things. It's like running campaign ads showing some candidate pushing granny over some cliff in a wheelchair, it sends a message that is NOT TRUE. I'm willing to stipulate that liberal believe they care, but you are going to have to put away the naivete that says your side has the corner of the market on caring because your side doesn't.

You do understand that you are falling for a political stereotype on your part right? It would be equivalent to me saying you are a socialist or communist (which I am NOT saying.... yet) so be fair here and answer the posed question.

Do you have ANY principles that would limit the size of government? Do you have ANY limiting principles beyond "As long as it doesn't cost me directly!"? If so, what are they?

Pumped storage at Hoover dam? One problem is obvious, pumped from WHERE?

If you look at the normal water cycle, that's pretty much what Hoover Dam is... We let the sun evaporate the water, it rains/snows up stream, and we recover the energy on the way down. Huge solar collector...

Natural Gas is cheaper! Why pay more?

Not to mention your numbers are a bit on the wishful thinking side of reality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

According to the government's numbers, Natural Gas is 73% the cost of wind on average, and Solar is nearly 3 times more expensive than Natural Gas. Of course this is IN THE USA (important to remember) and does NOT include tax incentives or funding deals afforded renewable projects, but only actual costs for construction, fuel, and decommissioning the plant after 30 years. (this is the fully burdened cost which actually is more favorable to renewables which have HUGE upfront costs and no fuel costs over time.)

Of course if you WANT to pay more.. Feel free... Which is apparently the case with Tesla. There business model is not about selling cheap cars to the have not's to maximize profits, theirs is a niche market, selling high priced low volume vehicles to the super-rich "have's" who need to appear as champions of the environment and don't mind paying for the appearance of actually caring. Those who want to drive carbon free to catch their chartered jet for their tropical vacation.

Unless it starts raining and snowing upstream pretty soon, Hoover Dam isn't going to be a source of much electricity anymore.