Charles Hoes

Someone is shy

Charles hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

Noface
Charles Hoes
Posted over 1 year ago
Jennifer Granholm: A clean energy proposal -- race to the top!
Bill, your discussion makes sense as long as the "price" of these fuels includes all of the costs - including the costs associated with global warming, ocean acidification, etc. The problem with this approach of letting the market find the optimal solution is that it tracks costs that do not include all of the costs included in the price of the alternatives. Leaving out the "external" costs results in a wildly skewed and highly inaccurate comparison. For example, what if the CO2 causes a total crash of the fish populations in the ocean? How much is this worth? What if 1/2 of the world's population perishes because of starvation associated with global warming? Is this important or not? Looking at just the short term, here and now, comparative cost of the various options is clearly inappropriate. Personally, I am not ready to bet the future of humanity on the current cost of solar versus Alaskan oil, or the cost of local versus Canadian oil. We really need to step back a few paces and look at the larger, bigger, picture over hundreds and thousands of years - not just the cost of gasoline this week at our local service station.
Noface
Charles Hoes
Posted over 1 year ago
Jennifer Granholm: A clean energy proposal -- race to the top!
This is a very thought provoking concept. I "retired" a couple of years ago, so have had the time to attend a lot of local government meetings. It has been a most frustrating experience because it has become so clear that their agendas have little or nothing to do with our communities. They are focused on other things, such as increased corporate profits, protecting developers and corporations from the need to meet environmental regulations, and other ideas intended to "jump start" the economy. As I have been sitting and watching these meetings, and the decisions that come from them, it has become clear that we need to find a way to circumvent our politicians. They have lost the ability to come to anything like optimal solutions, or to make decisions that support the local citizens rather than "outside" corporations. Ms Granholm's suggestion that we (whoever "we" are) step outside of the normal power structures and take matters in "our" own hands is very intriguing. It seems like we need to do that in many, many ways. We need to get together and let the politicians play their games, but we can ignore them and do what is right. We can set up ways to get what we need even though "they" don't seem to know how to get there, or maybe they just don't care. It sounds like a kind of revolution, one that doesn't require war or shooting, one just requires a will to do what needs to be done regardless of what the "leaders" want to do - and do it. We have the money, power, and ability to do what is needed - we just need to find a way to get the will to do it.
Noface
Charles Hoes
Posted over 1 year ago
$500 Billion - can this solve the big problems?
The reason that I think it is out of line has to do with what is meant by "cost." For example, assume that I buy a new type of light bulb that costs me $5.00 ($4.00 more than the $1.00 each one I am replacing), but that new bulb saves $10.00 in power over its life, and only has to be replaced 1/10 as often as the original - did it really "cost" me anything? It moved the timing of my money flow around a bit, but ended up saving me $10.00 in power and $5.00 in bulbs for a savings of $15.00. Is this really the same as costing me $4.00? While I agree that $78 a month is not out too much to pay, my question about how the bookkeeping is done with that determination. If it included only the "upfront" investment cost it would be one thing, but if it includes future savings such as with my light bulb example it could be very different. I am guessing, but don't know, that it is talking about the upfront investment cost disconnected from future savings. I am not arguing that we shouldn't invest the money, in fact I am arguing just the opposite - it is very likely much less expensive than claimed.
Noface
Charles Hoes
Posted over 1 year ago
$500 Billion - can this solve the big problems?
I have dedicated my life to that goal. I am a system safety engineer, helping make products and systems safer, cheaper, more reliable, and more environmentally friendly. I donate what I can to help those in need around the world and in my community. I am a volunteer fireman and get up in the middle of the night to help strangers in need - for free. I attempt to find love and compassion for myself so that I can help others do the same. I participate in discussions such as this one in the hopes of bringing some additional light to the topics. I help friends and neighbors bring cost effective energy solutions to their homes and businesses. I provide a work place that treats everyone as valued participants in the enterprise, and pay them accordingly. My company motto is "Do Good, Have Fun" with the intent of doing the best with both these that we can. I find that if I am doing good things I am also having fun. I participate in local government in the hopes of helping get to better, and fairer, solutions. I work with universities, utilities and others to help find affordable, appropriate solutions to our energy problems. I write articles, columns and lead discussion groups to help people see the broader issues involved with topics of importance. I do my best to love and respect those that I come in contact during the day - including myself. There are more things that I do, but I think you probably can get the drift. How about you?
Noface
Charles Hoes
Posted over 1 year ago
$500 Billion - can this solve the big problems?
Kate That is actually a rather complex question. I can enumerate a few of the ways that I am attempting to do that. (1) My career has been as a system safety engineer - I work with manufacturers to help them make products that are safer, cheaper, more efficient and environmentally "friendly." I bring the idea of system engineering to the team(s) so that they integrate the full range of issues into their designs, beyond the written specifications and profit. (2) I am a volunteer fireman and personally get up at 3:00am to help people who are in burning buildings, or scattered around on the freeway after horrific accidents. (3) I spend a lot of time as a concerned "citizen" observer reviewing and commenting on the local politician's plans for the community with the goal of bringing some system knowledge to the discussions to help get affordable, and sustainable solutions to energy and industrial planning. (4) I attempt to keep my point of view open so that I can better understand the point of view of others, and maybe assist them in realizing a more holistic and compassionate view of the world. (5) I donate what I can to assist those in need around the world and at home. This includes providing financial assistance for at risk families, providing money to build schools where needed, and generally helping those in my community that are in need of assistance. (6) I provide a work place environment where everyone is treated as equally important and compensated accordingly. (7) I spend a lot of time and effort on my personal spiritual development so that I can love and be compassionate to myself, so that I can do they same for others. (8) I engage in conversations such as this in an attempt to broaden my views and maybe help others do likewise. (9) I design and install cost effective energy efficiency systems for friends and neighbors. (10) I write about these things in journals and other avenues. (11) I always attempt to make the world a better place.
Noface
Charles Hoes
Posted over 1 year ago
$500 Billion - can this solve the big problems?
I think these stated costs for climate change mitigation are totally out of line. In almost all cases, the things that are needed to solve the problems save money, rather than cost money. For example, increasing the efficiency of things like cars and lightbulbs saves resources and money in a very short time - they are not "costs" - they are savings. Distributed, roof-top, solar is similar over a very short period of time. After a few years it saves its initial cost and then continues to save for decades into the future. It isn't as if we have to replace cheap fuel with expensive energy efficiency, we need to replace cheap fuel with no fuel. The costs go down, and the jobs go up. The money stays in the hands of the consumer, which drives the local and international economies. As far as I can determine, solving the global warming problem is a win-win proposition from the point of view of the economy, the consumers, and the world. Maybe not so much for the folks who are very rich because of the poor choices with regard to fuels and low equipment efficiencies. I wonder what the huge costs that you quoted were intended to cover? Maybe burning the money in a big incinerator to make electricity?
Noface
Charles Hoes
Posted over 1 year ago
$500 Billion - can this solve the big problems?
I find it rather amazing that these people were able to acquire $500B to donate. All of that money came from profits on things that they sold - which means that all of those things were priced far above their cost - now they have this crazy embarrassment of wealth. Personally, I am not pleased with the idea that they now have complete control over how they want to direct the donations - rather than having all of us who generated that money for them have a say its use. Back in the '50s there was a 90% tax to minimize the chances of this happening. That has been changed to a 15%, allowing the accumulation of vast wealth. I wonder what the economy would look like if all of that money had not be siphoned out of it.