NOW can we have funds for renewable energy?

[RandomGuy]

Cost comparison of energy sources (http://www.google.com/search?q=cost+comparison+of+energy+sources) is not a hard thing to find data for.

I have looked through a LOT of such data and they all point to the same trends and general analysis.


New industries require lots of capital that private entrepreneurs may not have. They require co-ordinated investments in related industries that individual entrepreneurs cannot organise by themselves. They generate demonstration effects and technological spillovers that raise social returns way above private incentives. All these are valid reasons for governments to give private investors a nudge.3

Is it really all that much to ask for, to get us started on a road that we know we will be on, even if we do nothing?

Given that costs of switching over will arguably likely be greater in the future, isn't the more dangerous decision to do nothing?

[Wild Cobra]

Following the Oil shocks of the 70s, top level administration in Nixon's white house advocated that we physically invade an OPEC nation to get our hands on the easy stuff. The threat of a counter strike by Russia was all that diverted us then. Coincidentally, Wolfowitz, Cheney, and Rumsfeld were all involved in that administration.

Years later they would go on to fulfill those aspirations in the Bush Admin.

I cant find the cite, but this is history that a smart mofo like yourself should know. And I think you do know.
Contingency plans are always in place, that doesn't mean we plan to act upon them. As a contingency plan, I can believe what you say. I just don't believe it was a scenario any actually tried to make happen.

[Wild Cobra]

he had no nukes. he had no chemical weapons. his country had been operating under sanctions and embargos for years, Iraq was in shambles. Shot at US planes for years, never hit one due to the lack of anti-aircraft weaponry. no threat to anyone in the US. Never confirmed any ties to al-queda. committed war crimes, lived luxuriously, starved his own people as a dictator, WHO WAS PROPPED UP BY THE US GOV UNTIL HE TRIED TO OVERSTEP HIS BOUNDS IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND BECAME A THREAT TO OUR OIL SUPPLY.

ITS ALL ABOUT THE TEXAS TEA.

Try again, brother.
Yes, but he was happy to let everyone think he was a threat.

[Wild Cobra]

Parker...

You have become a true tin hat wearer. There are others here I'm sure you'll get along with fine.

[RandomGuy]

LOL...

With "tax break."

LOL...

You call those subsidies?......

NEXT!

Then let renewable energy have the same level of tax breaks. Otherwise it acts just like a subsidy.

If oil development gets tax breaks, and renewables don't, does that distort their relative costs?

[RandomGuy]

Parker...

You have become a true tin hat wearer. There are others here I'm sure you'll get along with fine.

... says the guy who thinks global warming science is a conspiracy to grab power by "leftists".

[Wild Cobra]

Then let renewable energy have the same level of tax breaks. Otherwise it acts just like a subsidy.

If oil development gets tax breaks, and renewables don't, does that distort their relative costs?
Renewables do have tax breaks. My understanding is that the only thing that energy companies get that can be considered subsidies are for ethanol, and for renewables.

[Wild Cobra]

... says the guy who thinks global warming science is a conspiracy to grab power by "leftists".
So that's a reason to ignore reason?

[Parker2112]

we never propped up saddam. in fact we propped up the shah in iran to counter saddam and his ties to the soviets.
he had no nukes, but no one (besides sean penn) knew that. since he booted the weapons inspectors, we never found out he didn't have one. there are confirmed ties to al quaeda and saddam. saddam did shoot down planes. iraq the country was in shambles but he still had a huge army.

You're showing up to talk about the assignment without having done your homework.

If you dont know about US and Saddam, there's still alot you dont kow about this world, sir.

[Parker2112]

Yes, but he was happy to let everyone think he was a threat.

So we spend trillions of American dollars (UP TO FOUR TRILLION TOTAL EST.)and thousands of American lives BECAUSE SADDAM WAS POSTURING?

Your not even close. Read some of the books on the Bush admin. Even the conservative members of his admin have written on it.

Wild Cobra, your answers have been limited to one line responses with no substance...you are flailing away helplessly with personal attacks... dismissal is your greatest tool. Why dont the facts come to your aid here? The answer is obvious...

[Wild Cobra]

So we spend trillions of American dollars (UP TO FOUR TRILLION TOTAL EST.)and thousands of American lives BECAUSE SADDAM WAS POSTURING?

Your not even close. Read some of the books on the Bush admin. Even the conservative members of his admin have written on it.

Wild Cobra, your answers have been limited to one line responses with no substance...you are flailing away helplessly with personal attacks... dismissal is your greatest tool. Why dont the facts come to your aid here? The answer is obvious...
Why should I waste my time compiling more of a dialog when all I see is stupid rantings from you guys? No matter what I come up with, you find something to counter it with. I could in turn do the same thing. The internet if full of truth and lies. The problem is, you don't see the facts, just the numbers dealing with consensus.

[Wild Cobra]

You're showing up to talk about the assignment without having done your homework.

If you dont know about US and Saddam, there's still alot you dont kow about this world, sir.
So what do your historical revisionists say then. Please fill me in, because I'm sure it's different than the world events I remember in the 70's and 80's.

[jack sommerset]

Anyone figure out when the oil will run out and the world die? We know Random thinks it will be before his grandkid can drive.

[Parker2112]

So what do your historical revisionists say then. Please fill me in, because I'm sure it's different than the world events I remember in the 70's and 80's.

anybody recognize this dude? anybody?

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/handshake300.jpg

[Parker2112]

revisionist my ass.

[Parker2112]

Anyone figure out when the oil will run out and the world die? We know Random thinks it will be before his grandkid can drive.

It doesnt have to run out. Supply just has to fail to meet demand. That creates sky-high oil/gas/food/consumer goods/services prices. Which it is already beginning to do.

You need to wrap your head around the problem...its not as easy as 1-2-3.

[jack sommerset]

anybody recognize this dude? anybody?

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/handshake300.jpg

That is Saddam Hussein. He was president of Iraq until 2003. He lead a interesting but destructive life. He was found guilty of crimes against humanity. He murdered, tortured, raped his own people. His life is well documented. You should look him up.

[Parker2112]

That is Saddam Hussein. He was president of Iraq until 2003. He lead a interesting but destructive life. He was found guilty of crimes against humanity. He murdered, tortured, raped his own people. His life is well documented. You should look him up.

And our esteemed Donny Rumsfeld shaking hands with a criminal, rapist, torturer.

[jack sommerset]

It doesnt have to run out. Supply just has to fail to meet demand. That creates sky-high oil/gas/food/consumer goods/services prices. Which it is already beginning to do.

You need to wrap your head around the problem...its not as easy as 1-2-3.

I have and you are right. 1-2-3.

Randoms solutions is to raise prices now as if we have no oil left but more important he thinks it will run out before his grandkid will drive. Scary, scary stuff!

[jack sommerset]

And our esteemed Donny Rumsfeld shaking hands with a criminal, rapist, torturer.

WTF. No way!

Guess who this is? This one is a tough one. This political leader is bowing down to the oil king himself and shaking his hand!

http://www.wnd.com/images/misc/bowone.jpg

[clambake]

tell us about the oil business, jackie. har har

[Parker2112]

I have and you are right. 1-2-3.

Randoms solutions is to raise prices now as if we have no oil left but more important he thinks it will run out before his grandkid will drive. Scary, scary stuff!

Asia/China's industrialization and increasing appetite is the cause of the rising prices. We invade middle east countries to ensure we wont be left out in the cold, with no available/affordable supply in the future.

Its not the end of oil that will kill us. we wont even make it that far. It will be the end of EASY OIL that will shock our economy into a heart attack. The easy oil is the cheap stuff we are using now. the more difficult the oil is to find/extract/refine, the higher those prices will soar. while countries scramble to feed thier economies like ten kids sucking furiously though straws to get the last bits of the milkshake from the cup under little johnnys bed.

High prices with more industrialization could spell serious conflict, astronomical prices, and crumbling economies in the very near term. like before Randoms grandkids can drive.

then everyone will wish they had done something to plan for the future, wish they hadnt let big oil (who will have cashed out of the game by then) lead the entire country to its doom. and when we lay at the mercy of the red army, you will understand that inflated prices to curb use were well intentioned.

[Parker2112]

WTF. No way!

Guess who this is? This one is a tough one. This political leader is bowing down to the oil king himself and shaking his hand!

http://www.wnd.com/images/misc/bowone.jpg

puppets, doing the bidding of thier contributors/citizens. citezens who would use as much as they can get thier hands on. contributors who would profit on every drop. both of the above officials.

funny... there is no face on this one.

[jack sommerset]

That's what makes it so hard, right. It's Obama.

[clambake]

jackie would rather see full on tongue......like the last president. har har

[Parker2112]

That's what makes it so hard, right. It's Obama.

not to mention any president of the US has to slob the nob of Suadi's royal family in order to feed the voters/constituents/contributors habits. Obama is just like every other president who has had to get on his knees before the defacto rulers of the free world to date.

But are you saying that ties to Saudi=ties to Saddam? I think even a dense dude like you can see the difference.

[Wild Cobra]

It doesnt have to run out. Supply just has to fail to meet demand. That creates sky-high oil/gas/food/consumer goods/services prices. Which it is already beginning to do.

You need to wrap your head around the problem...its not as easy as 1-2-3.
Since it's so easy, why not let those market forces dictate when we switch over?

[Wild Cobra]

anybody recognize this dude? anybody?

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/handshake300.jpg
What's your point? Are you trying to make the fact that two people who despise each other can still have a civil meeting, and handshake, into friendship?

[Wild Cobra]

And our esteemed Donny Rumsfeld shaking hands with a criminal, rapist, torturer.
God you're stupid.

What should he do? Pull out a 45 and shoot him during a political meeting?

[Wild Cobra]

WTF. No way!

Guess who this is? This one is a tough one. This political leader is bowing down to the oil king himself and shaking his hand!

http://www.wnd.com/images/misc/bowone.jpg
Yes, he must be a subject of the Saudi king...

[Parker2112]

We sought him out because we thought he would be a better option than the Shah. why would rummy shoot him here? he was trying to aid and abet him right here.

[Wild Cobra]

not to mention any president of the US has to slob the nob of Suadi's royal family in order to feed the voters/constituents/contributors habits. Obama is just like every other president who has had to get on his knees before the defacto rulers of the free world to date.

But are you saying that ties to Saudi=ties to Saddam? I think even a dense dude like you can see the difference.
Idiot.

All leaders make nice with each other, otherwise dialog becomes impossible.

My question is, why do so many democrats not in leadership positions make nice with these thugs?

[RandomGuy]

Since it's so easy, why not let those market forces dictate when we switch over?


Since Karl Popper, every student of scientific method knows that a statement such as "all swans are white" can be proved wrong, but it cannot be proved right. ... Industrial policy "fails most of the time", or "fails more often than it succeeds"—these are at least plausible arguments. But industrial policy fails always?

My advantage is greatly heightened by the fact that Mr Lerner is a scholar who is as reasonable as he is knowledgeable. So it is in his book "Boulevard of Broken Dreams" (2009) that we find one of the most effective ripostes directed at the market-fundamentalist account of American technological prowess. "The public sector", Lerner writes, referring especially to the role of the Department of Defense, "proved a critical catalyst to growth in Silicon Valley." And what is true of America is true worldwide as well: "Public programs played an important role in triggering the explosive growth of every other major venture market around the globe." With this said, what is left for me to add?

The white swans of this debate are known as "white elephants"—those colossal projects spawned by industrial policies that never fulfil their architects' dreams and end up bleeding their national treasuries dry. As we know, the landscape is strewn with such white elephants—Concorde, the Proton and the countless factories in the developing world operating at half capacity and at great loss.

But there are black elephants too, and in truth they are far more pervasive than the Tasmanian black swans that adorn the flag of the state of Western Australia. Beyond Mr Lerner's Silicon Valley and venture capital examples, we might mention South Korea's POSCO, possibly the world's most productive steel firm, and Dubai's Jebel Ali port, one of the world's largest and most successful ports—both established by public money and widely derided as uneconomic at the outset. Or we might mention the Chilean salmon industry—the creation of a public venture fund (Fundación Chile)—which stands in sharp contrast to the free-market brush with which Chile's economic success is so frequently (and so misleadingly) painted. If pressed further, we might add to the list Brazil's aircraft industry, Taiwan's and Singapore's electronics industries, China's auto and auto components industries, and many others.

Anyone who thinks failure is the norm in industrial policy should consider this factoid. Latin America experienced far more rapid productivity growth during the early post-war decades when it was heavily subsidising and protecting its "infant" industries than it has since the 1990s when those policies were chucked overboard. I would not wish to go back to those old policies—we can certainly do better. But despite its evident excesses, it is surely telling that "import substitution", as Latin America's earlier economic strategy was called, outperformed anything the region has experienced since (or before).

The essence of economic development is structural transformation, the rise of new industries to replace traditional ones. But this is not an easy or automatic process. It requires a mix of market forces and government support. If the government is too heavy-handed, it kills private entrepreneurship. If it is too standoffish, markets keep doing what they know how to do best, confining the country to its specialisation in traditional, low-productivity products.

Economists understand well the role that industrial policy plays in successful cases. New industries require lots of capital that private entrepreneurs may not have. They require co-ordinated investments in related industries that individual entrepreneurs cannot organise by themselves. They generate demonstration effects and technological spillovers that raise social returns way above private incentives. All these are valid reasons for governments to give private investors a nudge.

The critic responds that all these ideas are fine, but the problem is in practice. Fixing these "market failures" is difficult and governments can just as easily mess it up. Once you open up the door to intervention, all kinds of special interests are likely to get into the act and try to divert policy to their own, selfish ends.

Quite true. But then again this is not that different from what happens when governments engage in, say, education policy, health policy, or tax policy. In each of these areas, governments are driven by economic and social goals that are often articulated loosely and targeted imperfectly. In each of them the policy process can be hijacked by special interests. Few but libertarians draw the conclusion from this that government departments should be abolished and schooling, health, or social insurance should be left completely to markets. We debate how best to provide these public services, not whether they should be provided at all.

So it should be with industrial policy. Fostering structural transformation and innovation is a central public purpose. Governments cannot evade the challenge. The only debatable question about industrial policy is not "whether" but "how."

[Parker2112]

Yes, he must be a subject of the Saudi king...

as every president is. we are fortunate not to have to deal with the dealers directly, we elect officials to secure our fix.

[RandomGuy]

I have already pointed out that the Chinese are investing rather heavily in renewables.

If one doubles the costs of oil relative to purchasing power, and one country has reduced its economic dependency on oil, while the other has waited for "market forces" to do it and is still highly dependent, where does the economic competitive advantage lie?

[Parker2112]

I would bet China doesnt have big business at the helm.

[RandomGuy]

I would bet China doesnt have big business at the helm.

You would lose that bet.

All state-owned companies tend to have one or two major stockholders who just *happen* to be generals or high-level politicians. This little factoid tends to stymie foreign companies trying to enter the Chinese market.

China's interlinking between government and business is much more pervasive and corrupt than the US by any measure.

This, coupled with the lack of legal protections and rising labor costs, are making US and European businesses start to think twice about jumping in.

China will grow by leaps and bounds, but is setting itself up for a major bubble down the road. I don't think that bubble will manifest itself for a good 5+ years if not 10+, but those two elements are prerequisites for nasty capital-destroying bubbles.

[Wild Cobra]

We sought him out because we thought he would be a better option than the Shah. why would rummy shoot him here? he was trying to aid and abet him right here.
Wait a minute...

You show a picture with Rummy, what year was that picture? The Shah lost power to Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979, before Rummy was in such a position.

That picture was taken in December 1983.

You think you know your history? then how can this be related to the Shah?

My point of shooting was rhetorical. Just what is one suppose to do? Make your hatred known?

What do you think of these?

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/226/520799814_cf413a08a8_m.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/229/520799802_4e88525f62_o.jpg

They look truly happy to be in each others company.

[Wild Cobra]

I have already pointed out that the Chinese are investing rather heavily in renewables.

If one doubles the costs of oil relative to purchasing power, and one country has reduced its economic dependency on oil, while the other has waited for "market forces" to do it and is still highly dependent, where does the economic competitive advantage lie?
You don't think the free market sees this?

[Parker2112]

Wait a minute...

You show a picture with Rummy, what year was that picture? The Shah lost power to Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979, before Rummy was in such a position.

That picture was taken in December 1983.

You think you know your history? then how can this be related to the Shah?

My point of shooting was rhetorical. Just what is one suppose to do? Make your hatred known?

What do you think of these?

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/226/520799814_cf413a08a8_m.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/229/520799802_4e88525f62_o.jpg

They look truly happy to be in each others company.

Hatred? :lol

if you think politicians hold the same petty emotional bases as you and I, you are truly naive sir.

Until you explain the US relationship with Saddam during the 80's, I refuse to go further. This continual shape-shifting/hide-the-ball/pull-the-wool/confuse the audience/I know-you-are-but-what-am-I approach just doesnt carry enough weight to stay involved.

[RandomGuy]

We sought [Saddam Hussein] out because we thought he would be a better option than the Shah. why would rummy shoot him here? he was trying to aid and abet him right here.

Saddam was a counterweight to the Islamic Republic of Iran established after they deposed the Shah in 1979.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War

Saddam was a foil against a regime openly and actively hostile to the US at the time. That was why Mssrs Rumsfeld and Hussein were meeting.

We propped him up with no small amount of assistance to allow his much smaller country to defend itself against a rather maniacal, wild-eyed bunch of religious zealots.

Realpolitik in one of its more distasteful episodes.

[RandomGuy]

What do you think of these?

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/226/520799814_cf413a08a8_m.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/229/520799802_4e88525f62_o.jpg

They look truly happy to be in each others company.

I think you have a simplistic view of both men and relationships. :p:

[Parker2112]

Saddam was a counterweight to the Islamic Republic of Iran established after they deposed the Shah in 1979.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War

Saddam was a foil against a regime openly and actively hostile to the US at the time. That was why Mssrs Rumsfeld and Hussein were meeting.

We propped him up with no small amount of assistance to allow his much smaller country to defend itself against a rather maniacal, wild-eyed bunch of religious zealots.

Realpolitik in one of its more distasteful episodes.

[RandomGuy]

Anyone figure out when the oil will run out and the world die? We know Random thinks it will be before his grandkid can drive.

Oil will not "run out" in any depletion scenario currently contemplated by anybody for over a century.

That is a "strawman".

More accurate is the statement "cheap oil" is running out, if not already gone.

The world will not die, but we WILL have to figure out how to have modern agriculture with an increasingly scarce resource, because modern and efficient farms require good amounts of oil products to function.

[Wild Cobra]

Oil will not "run out" in any depletion scenario currently contemplated by anybody for over a century.

That is a "strawman".

More accurate is the statement "cheap oil" is running out, if not already gone.

The world will not die, but we WILL have to figure out how to have modern agriculture with an increasingly scarce resource, because modern and efficient farms require good amounts of oil products to function.
Change is not easy, but I'm not one who believes if forcing it. If people think they need to manipulate certain aspects of it, then they need to think and and be certain they are right. There is no evidence strong enough to mandate commitment of resources to these endeavors.

[Parker2112]

There is no evidence strong enough to mandate commitment of resources to these endeavors.

glad the US people arent relying on you to make policy. this statement is flat-out assenine. this statement shows your stubborness has overtaken all reason. this statement sums you up as a conservative quack.

[RandomGuy]

There is no evidence strong enough to mandate commitment of resources to these endeavors.


In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.

This bodes ill for a democracy, because most voters — the people making decisions about how the country runs — aren’t blank slates. They already have beliefs, and a set of facts lodged in their minds. The problem is that sometimes the things they think they know are objectively, provably false. And in the presence of the correct information, such people react very, very differently than the merely uninformed. Instead of changing their minds to reflect the correct information, they can entrench themselves even deeper.

There is quite enough data to support allocating resources to this endeavor.

You have simply chosen to ignore it.

[Parker2112]

I read his statement as what it was: no matter how much evidence anyone presents, it will never be enough to convince WC. which is BS.

[Wild Cobra]

glad the US people arent relying on you to make policy. this statement is flat-out assenine. this statement shows your stubborness has overtaken all reason. this statement sums you up as a conservative quack.
Too bad you cannot counter my points with scientific facts.

[Wild Cobra]

There is quite enough data to support allocating resources to this endeavor.

You have simply chosen to ignore it.
I haven't ignored it at all. There is not solid evidence.

Seriously, again...

Why wouldn't the energy companies invest more in green energy, to insure future profits, if your point was true?

[Wild Cobra]

I read his statement as what it was: no matter how much evidence anyone presents, it will never be enough to convince WC. which is BS.
Bullshit.

You're just not smart enough to give me information that will change my mind.

Find me credible information, and I will see it for what it is. I just haven't seen anything credible yet.

[RandomGuy]

I haven't ignored it at all. There is not solid evidence.

Seriously, again...

Why wouldn't the energy companies invest more in green energy, to insure future profits, if your point was true?


In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.

The evidence supporting oil depletion is very solid.

You have yet to present any evidence whatsoever showing that it isn't.

[RandomGuy]

Bullshit.

You're just not smart enough to give me information that will change my mind.

Find me credible information, and I will see it for what it is. I just haven't seen anything credible yet.

You obviously haven't bothered reading any of the copious links I have provided.

The only reason you haven't seen anything credible has more to do with your laziness than your intelligence.

[Wild Cobra]

The evidence supporting oil depletion is very solid.
No it isn't.

You have yet to present any evidence whatsoever showing that it isn't.
The fact the curve points continue to change as time passes is good enough for me.


In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.
How can you assume that applies all the time?

God... that's ridiculous!

[Wild Cobra]

You obviously haven't bothered reading any of the copious links I have provided.

The only reason you haven't seen anything credible has more to do with your laziness than your intelligence.
Try showing me something credible, with a summary showing you understand it. Point me to the parts of a link instead of whole links.

[RandomGuy]

Try showing me something credible, with a summary showing you understand it. Point me to the parts of a link instead of whole links.

I have done both already. I see little need to spend my time presenting you with information you will not read.

But, since I like to think I am fair, will take about 10 minutes of my time to try and satisfy your request.

[Wild Cobra]

I have done both already. I see little need to spend my time presenting you with information you will not read.

But, since I like to think I am fair, will take about 10 minutes of my time to try and satisfy your request.
Still don't see one yet.

Have to get some sleep before going to work tonight. Take your time, I won't get to it till morning.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156620

This was a thread where I posted pretty much the complete article outlining some of the effects.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4430750&postcount=83

Here is where I outline some current production figures, in this thread, I might add.

And that is the 10 minutes I alloted.

For the rest of it, you will ahve to do your own research WC. I do not have the time to do your research for you at the moment. Perhaps some other time.

[RandomGuy]

Try showing me something credible, with a summary showing you understand it. Point me to the parts of a link instead of whole links.

The first concept is the Energy Return on Investment (EROI)

It takes energy to get energy. In the early phases of US oil discovery and exploitation it was estimated that one barrel of oil yielded 100. (Cleveland 2005)


Today, the circumstances are different, as nearly all of the easy-to-find and easy-to-produce oil wells have been found and produced. For example, Ghawar, the world’s biggest oil field, was discovered in 1948, and even with all of the advances in seismic technology over the past 60 years, nary an oil well of nearly the same magnitude has been found.

High return:
http://www.theoildrum.com/files/EROI18.png

Low return:
http://www.theoildrum.com/files/EROI1.2.png

http://netenergy.theoildrum.com/node/6545

If most of your energy goes back into getting the next 100 units of energy, you have to consume a much larger large amount of energy to provide an equivalent amount of "free energy" to a society so that it can use that free energy for other things, like say, growing food.

Do you accept and understand this concept, WC?

[boutons_deux]

"It takes energy to get energy"

Situation MUCH WORSE (than only energy in/out/lost) when TOTAL COST OF EXTRACTION is accounted for. For shale gas/fracking, shale oil, coal, the cost in polluted water, land, air must be figured in.

If America were a responsible, mature adult rather than greedy, whiny, self-centered, gimme-gimme-gimme 2-year-old, it would realize and admit that the era of cheap energy is over.

[Parker2112]

"It takes energy to get energy"

Situation MUCH WORSE (than only energy in/out/lost) when TOTAL COST OF EXTRACTION is accounted for. For shale gas/fracking, shale oil, coal, the cost in polluted water, land, air must be figured in.

If America were a responsible, mature adult rather than greedy, whiny, self-centered, gimme-gimme-gimme 2-year-old, it would realize and admit that the era of cheap energy is over.

agreed. but this country is full of sheep (who have been led to believe that they deserve every modern convenience, by big corps/government), sheep who are never intended to see the actual cost (that boutons speaks of), because that would potentially sever the extreme profit margins that big oil is currently seeing.

the sheep are wearing blinders by design.

[Wild Cobra]

TMI Random

I ask for quotes within article, and your own words in a summary to show you understand, and you give me almost nothing. I was looking forward to a few examples to be tasked with. You disappoint me.

Yes, I understand the EROI concept. So?

I'm not going to wast my time reading several thousand words finding relevance in past threads here, or threads on another board.

[MannyIsGod]

Jesus Christ no one on this board makes me wish I could punch them as much as you WC. No one. Congrats, most people here don't crawl under my skin but you do it with no effort.

[Wild Cobra]

Jesus Christ no one on this board makes me wish I could punch them as much as you WC. No one. Congrats, most people here don't crawl under my skin but you do it with no effort.
Glad I can provide such a service. But please, I don't understand how I made you so made. please let me know, so I can do it better.

Seriously though. I asked Random for his argument against mine with simple qualifiers:

Try showing me something credible, with a summary showing you understand it. Point me to the parts of a link instead of whole links.
If he was a valid point, why can't he quote the valid part of a link, and supply the link. Supply a link with thousands of words, no summary... That's a cheap lawyers trick.

[Wild Cobra]

If most of your energy goes back into getting the next 100 units of energy, you have to consume a much larger large amount of energy to provide an equivalent amount of "free energy" to a society so that it can use that free energy for other things, like say, growing food.

Do you accept and understand this concept, WC?
Yes, I accept and agree with the concept.

Care to show us how modern drilling compares to something like hydrogen, or ethanol?

Look. I agree oil gets more and more energy intensive to find. I don't think anyone disagrees with it. Energy is not the only cost. Even with our more expensive methods of getting oil, it's cheaper than large scale wind, solar, etc. Then when it comes to making something usable for transportation, options get even more elaborate and costly.

Do you want to not only put the lower class out of the ability to own a car, but the middle class as well?

Consider the cost without subsidies, because we cannot subsidize everyone.

[Wild Cobra]

Jesus Christ no one on this board makes me wish I could punch them as much as you WC. No one. Congrats, most people here don't crawl under my skin but you do it with no effort.
Just smite me my lord.

[MannyIsGod]

More than half new power in U.S., EU is green: study

http://www.scientificamerican.com/assets/img/global_elements/reuters-115x15.gif
http://imagec14.247realmedia.com/RealMedia/ads/Creatives/default/empty.gif/0 (http://oascentral.scientificamerican.com/RealMedia/ads/click_lx.ads/sciam.com/basic-science/1824725292/x81/default/empty.gif/5958766e6955772f587030414145552b?x) http://www.scientificamerican.com/media/externalnews/2010-07-15T182223Z_01_BTRE66E1F1D00_RTROPTP_2_ENVIRONMENT-US-ENERGY-RENEWABLES.JPG More than half new power in U.S., EU is green: study Six 1.5-megawatt wind turbines are pictured at work at the Exelon-Community Energy Wind Farm at Somerset, Pennsylvania, August 10, 2008. REUTERS/Stelios Varias


.atools_holder {border:#e4e0dd 1px solid; width:78px; background-color:#e4e0dd; color:#999; text-align:center; margin:0 0 5px 5px;} .atools_holder {text-align:-moz-center} .atools {width:98%; padding:3px 1px 0 0} .atools {text-align:-moz-center} .atools img {margin-bottom:5px; display:block;} .badge {padding: 2px; background-color:#fff; width:54px;margin-bottom:3px; left: 50%;} #atools_sponsor {width:88px;} #atools_sponsor span {font-size:8px !important; color:#999; font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif !important; text-align:center} http://www.scientificamerican.com/assets/img/interface/tools-Email.gif (http://www.scientificamerican.com/page.cfm?section=mailarticle&item_id=D7510CA6-08B5-BF9B-1C4E4D9C5846D401) http://www.scientificamerican.com/assets/img/interface/tools-Print.gif (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=green-new-power-in-us&print=true) http://www.scientificamerican.com/assets/img/interface/tools-Comment.gif (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=green-new-power-in-us#commentbox) 0diggsdigg



LONDON (Reuters) - More than half of all new electricity capacity added in the United States and Europe last year was from renewable power such as wind and solar, a body backed by the International Energy Agency and the UN reported.
Last year was also a record year for the amount of new green power added to the grid, partly a result of shifting deployment and manufacture to emerging economies including Brazil, India and China, from flagging developed countries.
"In 2009, China produced 40 percent of the world's solar PV supply, 30 percent of the world's wind turbines, up from 10 percent in 2007," REN21, or the Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century, said in a report on Thursday.
REN21, launched in 2005, is supported by the International Energy Agency (IEA), which advises 28 industrialized countries -- and by the United Nations Environment Programme.
Of an extra 80 gigawatts (GW) of new renewable power capacity added worldwide, China added 37 GW, more than any other country, said the study, titled "Renewables 2010, Global Status Report."
Despite the impact of the financial crisis and lower oil prices, renewable capacity grew at rates close to those in previous years, including solar photovoltaic (PV) power at 53 percent and wind power (http://www.scientificamerican.com/topic.cfm?id=wind-power) at 32 percent, the report said.
Grid-connected solar PV power had grown by an average of 60 percent every year for the past decade, increasing 100-fold since 2000.
That boom has been largely on the back of support in European countries, where a recent pullback following recession has raised investor jitters. But the wind and solar sectors were still poised for a record year in 2010, operators and investors say.
While China is making great strides in renewable energy deployment, its carbon emissions also accelerated in 2009 -- placing it further ahead as the world's top emitter of the main greenhouse gas blamed for climate change.

[Wild Cobra]

Nice Hype Manny.

Yes, China has added so much renewable power. However, most was hydroelectric. We have already pretty much built already developed the hydro projects available to us.

Would the destruction of such ecology ever be allowed to make dams today in the USA like they did in Chine over this last decade?

[MannyIsGod]

LONDON (Reuters) - More than half of all new electricity capacity added in the United States and Europe last year was from renewable power such as wind and solar, a body backed by the International Energy Agency and the UN reported.

[Drachen]

Nice Hype Manny.

Yes, China has added so much renewable power. However, most was hydroelectric. We have already pretty much built already developed the hydro projects available to us.

Would the destruction of such ecology ever be allowed to make dams today in the USA like they did in Chine over this last decade?

They are adding 12 Gw of capacity through wind energy every year.

[Wild Cobra]

They are adding 12 Gw of capacity through wind energy every year.
That's good then. Is that peak, or average estimates?

[Drachen]

That's good then. Is that peak, or average estimates?

I will be honest here, the articles I am reading don't make this clear. They will reach their 2020 goal of 30 Gw of generating capacity (the way this is worded, I would say peak) this year. They may have already since they are putting a new 1.5 Mw turbine in every hour.

Ingenuity, foresight, strange that it is ok that the Chinese want to slowly steal our national traits and it is ok. Maybe its what we put up as collateral for the debt we owe them.

Used to be: lets go grab our future.
Now its: I want to stay in the present until the future drags me away kicking and screaming.

[Wild Cobra]

I will be honest here, the articles I am reading don't make this clear. They will reach their 2020 goal of 30 Gw of generating capacity (the way this is worded, I would say peak) this year. They may have already since they are putting a new 1.5 Mw turbine in every hour.

Ingenuity, foresight, strange that it is ok that the Chinese want to slowly steal our national traits and it is ok. Maybe its what we put up as collateral for the debt we owe them.
Well, they have so much of our money, they can afford to do expensive projects.

I just wish they would clean up their coal burning plants.

[admiralsnackbar]

That's good then. Is that peak, or average estimates?

Wouldn't it have to be average? Nothing runs at peak all year long.

[Wild Cobra]

Wouldn't it have to be average? Nothing runs at peak all year long.
It all depends on the impression the author of the story wants to imply. I think it would have been specified if it was average.

Average solar power of only about 35% of peak. Wind power, depends on the normal flows, but the wind does not always blow.

[Drachen]

It all depends on the impression the author of the story wants to imply. I think it would have been specified if it was average.

Average solar power of only about 35% of peak. Wind power, depends on the normal flows, but the wind does not always blow.

However Solar panels and projects are rated on what they are likely to produce (I don't know if wind is rated the same way). A 1 Gw solar system (LOL) doesn't mean that it produces 1 Gw in the unlikely event that the sun shines 24 hours a day. It means that in the area where it will be installed, taking into account the prevailing weather patterns, this system is likely to produce 1 Gw.

[Wild Cobra]

However Solar panels and projects are rated on what they are likely to produce (I don't know if wind is rated the same way). A 1 Gw solar system (LOL) doesn't mean that it produces 1 Gw in the unlikely event that the sun shines 24 hours a day. It means that in the area where it will be installed, taking into account the prevailing weather patterns, this system is likely to produce 1 Gw.
Maybe. I just wouldn't count on it being average power without definitive knowledge that it is.

[Drachen]

Maybe. I just wouldn't count on it being average power without definitive knowledge that it is.

That's cool, although, it really doesn't matter. The whole point of bringing that up was to show that China is focusing heavily on renewable energy and will likely surpass us next year in generating capacity. As to your Coal plant suggestion, Thermal energy (burning stuff) has been by a pretty big amount as a % of their entire generating abilities. Most recently it dropped by 1.5% last year (still solidly number 1 at about 74%).

[RandomGuy]

TMI Random

I ask for quotes within article, and your own words in a summary to show you understand, and you give me almost nothing. I was looking forward to a few examples to be tasked with. You disappoint me.

Yes, I understand the EROI concept. So?

I'm not going to wast my time reading several thousand words finding relevance in past threads here, or threads on another board.

Ok. We have that agreed-on assumption/concept.

Now, we can move on to the general way in which finite resources are extracted.

Generally, the easiest to get at and closest sources of any given resource are the first exploited and exhausted. The most economical sources are used first.

Do you agree with and understand THIS?

[RandomGuy]

However Solar panels and projects are rated on what they are likely to produce (I don't know if wind is rated the same way). A 1 Gw solar system (LOL) doesn't mean that it produces 1 Gw in the unlikely event that the sun shines 24 hours a day. It means that in the area where it will be installed, taking into account the prevailing weather patterns, this system is likely to produce 1 Gw.

Wind is rated in a similar fashion yes.

[RandomGuy]

Ok. We have that agreed-on assumption/concept.

Now, we can move on to the general way in which finite resources are extracted.

Generally, the easiest to get at and closest sources of any given resource are the first exploited and exhausted. The most economical sources are used first.

Do you agree with and understand THIS?

Sorry, I missed WC's earlier response, he has answered this, already.




Look. I agree oil gets more and more energy intensive to find. I don't think anyone disagrees with it. .

So, we have agreed on the first two assumptions. I believe you have even acceded that the two concepts imply that we MUST switch over from oil to something else eventually.

You and Darrin both seem to think that humanity has no useful estimate as to how much oil there is left, and use that perceived lack of data as a reason to delay any action on this, deferring instead to the "free market" to determine when we switch over.

The obvious reposte to this, is to point out, as WC acknowledges, that over time, the efficiency of oil as a resource will go down. This WILL make it more costly as time goes by, whether we know how much oil is left or not.

[RandomGuy]

Now I will ask a rather important question that goes to the heart of the course of action that you are advocating Wild Cobra, i.e. do nothing.

Have government subsidies "incubated" industrial sectors and businesses that today require no subsidies and are profitable in the free market?

[Wild Cobra]

Ok. We have that agreed-on assumption/concept.

Now, we can move on to the general way in which finite resources are extracted.

Generally, the easiest to get at and closest sources of any given resource are the first exploited and exhausted. The most economical sources are used first.

Do you agree with and understand THIS?
Absolutely.

Bottom line, yes, oil will get more expensive as time goes by. We really cannot predict by how much, over what timeframe. The energy companies have better knowledge on this, as insiders.

Again, Energy companies will focus on what is most profitable. When they see other means as being profitable, they will go down that path.

I will contend that accelerating this unnaturally will just give us higher prices, faster, and unnecessarily.

[Wild Cobra]

Now I will ask a rather important question that goes to the heart of the course of action that you are advocating Wild Cobra, i.e. do nothing.

Have government subsidies "incubated" industrial sectors and businesses that today require no subsidies and are profitable in the free market?
I assume some exist, but I couldn't name them.

Corn no longer needs subsidies, but that's because gasoline is now required to contain 10% ethanol. Not exactly a free market thing.

[admiralsnackbar]

I assume some exist, but I couldn't name them.

Corn no longer needs subsidies, but that's because gasoline is now required to contain 10% ethanol. Not exactly a free market thing.

Some might disagree considering a tank of gasoline will burn longer than one with ethanol added. Ethanol increases the rate of use, and, thus, sales. I agree consumers didn't clamor to have ethanol+gas foisted upon them, but the people who marketed the idea were certainly happy to get it through.

[RandomGuy]

I assume some [examples of profitable competitive companies started by government subsidies] exist, but I couldn't name them.

Corn no longer needs subsidies, but that's because gasoline is now required to contain 10% ethanol. Not exactly a free market thing.


Silicon Valley and venture capital examples, we might mention South Korea's POSCO, possibly the world's most productive steel firm, and Dubai's Jebel Ali port, one of the world's largest and most successful ports—both established by public money and widely derided as uneconomic at the outset. Or we might mention the Chilean salmon industry—the creation of a public venture fund (Fundación Chile)—which stands in sharp contrast to the free-market brush with which Chile's economic success is so frequently (and so misleadingly) painted. If pressed further, we might add to the list Brazil's aircraft industry, Taiwan's and Singapore's electronics industries, China's auto and auto components industries, and many others.

The US' dominance in the areospace industry, boeing, lockheed, etc. stems from the same kinds of government investments, creating long-standing competitive advantages.

The Chinese government is subsidizing its renewable sector, and indeed they are now licensing some technology to US, not the other way around, as the article I posted earlier in the thread notes.

Do you accede that it is indeed possible for governments to kick-start profitable companies and sectors?

[Wild Cobra]

The US' dominance in the areospace industry, boeing, lockheed, etc. stems from the same kinds of government investments, creating long-standing competitive advantages.

The Chinese government is subsidizing its renewable sector, and indeed they are now licensing some technology to US, not the other way around, as the article I posted earlier in the thread notes.

Do you accede that it is indeed possible for governments to kick-start profitable companies and sectors?
I was limiting myself to our economy. Now if you wish to live under laws like the UAE, or China has, by all means, move.

p.s.

Government investments are not truly subsidies. Corporations might get seed money to develop a needed specified product, but after that, the money is earned.

[RandomGuy]

I was limiting myself to our economy. Now if you wish to live under laws like the UAE, or China has, by all means, move.

p.s.

Government investments are not truly subsidies. Corporations might get seed money to develop a needed specified product, but after that, the money is earned.

So you do admit it is possible for governments to kick-start profitable companies and sectors?

I gave you at least two sectors of the US economy started that way.

[RandomGuy]

So I think what we have here is pretty much a meeting of the minds:

We both understand that the energy efficiency of oil WILL fall.
We both understand what that generally means for other energy sources.
I don't think WC can make an effective case stating that governments never successfully incubate profitable industries and companies. There are concrete examples both in the US and abroad.

This leaves a few things unsettled:
1) How much oil is left. I will, this evening, flesh this out. From the data that can be gathered, we have a fair idea of how much oil is left that can be recovered.

2) What will happen as oil becomes less and less efficient as an energy source. I have, in other threads posted some guesses as to what that means, I can do so again.

3) What to do, given the above information.

[Wild Cobra]

So you do admit it is possible for governments to kick-start profitable companies and sectors?

I gave you at least two sectors of the US economy started that way.
Yes, it is possible. But only when it is a product that is new, and there is a demand for.

What is the government helping to develop what there isn't already investment capital for, that will carry a free market demand? What worth is it afterward without a free market demand?

[Wild Cobra]

So I think what we have here is pretty much a meeting of the minds:

We both understand that the energy efficiency of oil WILL fall.
We both understand what that generally means for other energy sources.

I do agree.

I don't think WC can make an effective case stating that governments never successfully incubate profitable industries and companies. There are concrete examples both in the US and abroad.

My point is that corporate money is already there in most cases. There is no need to waste government money on what venture capitalists will do.


This leaves a few things unsettled:
1) How much oil is left. I will, this evening, flesh this out. From the data that can be gathered, we have a fair idea of how much oil is left that can be recovered.

No, we only have an accurate assessment at what the minimum is. We haven't a clue what the maximum is.


2) What will happen as oil becomes less and less efficient as an energy source. I have, in other threads posted some guesses as to what that means, I can do so again.

Then as the price of energy from oil costs more, alternates like natural gas, hydrogen, electricity, etc. for transportation will become more attractive to invest in, and produce.


3) What to do, given the above information.

Let the free market work.

[RandomGuy]

I do agree.

My point is that corporate money is already there in most cases. There is no need to waste government money on what venture capitalists will do.

No, we only have an accurate assessment at what the minimum is. We haven't a clue what the maximum is.

Then as the price of energy from oil costs more, alternates like natural gas, hydrogen, electricity, etc. for transportation will become more attractive to invest in, and produce.

Let the free market work.

Hyrogen is not a form of energy. It is a form of energy storage.

We have a pretty good idea what the maximum will be, and we are pretty certain that long before we tap out the last barrel, it will have outlived its economic usefulness.

I am all for letting the free market work.

I am also all for giving our renewable sector a head start in terms of scaling up and R & D investment.

If we don't give that sector a head start, and other countries do, that will put us at a distinct competitive disadvantage. Both Europe and China have started to make some solid investments.

Are you saying that we should just let them get a competitive advantage?

[Wild Cobra]

Hyrogen is not a form of energy. It is a form of energy storage.

So is methane, oil, gasoline, etc. in the chemistry view of things. We can easily make hydrogen using energy. However, it also occurs naturally like the others do. Do you really think that distinction matters?


We have a pretty good idea what the maximum will be, and we are pretty certain that long before we tap out the last barrel, it will have outlived its economic usefulness.

You and I disagree there. So do others.

Who is this "we" in this case? Environmentalists? Politicians? Scaremongers?


I am all for letting the free market work.

I sure hope so.


I am also all for giving our renewable sector a head start in terms of scaling up and R & D investment.

I think the head start is accomplished. No more is needed unless you are one who wants the government to pick which companies to give a head start over others. I don't know about you, but I feel it is very anti-American to let the government pick winners and losers.


If we don't give that sector a head start, and other countries do, that will put us at a distinct competitive disadvantage. Both Europe and China have started to make some solid investments.

China has an ever-growing pot of money to work with. Europe taxes the hell out of petro. It is cost effective for them to do so. We have plenty of innovation happening already. There is a facility in Eugene Oregon that plans to put in a production facility for making solar cells, for the demand there already is.

We have the technology. That is not the problem. No head starts are needed. We just need the demand.


Are you saying that we should just let them get a competitive advantage?
I'm saying you are 100% wrong about that aspect.

[RandomGuy]

Who is this "we" in this case [who are making estimates of the maximum amount of oil we will discover and tap]? Environmentalists? Politicians? Scaremongers?


Petroleum engineers, the oil companies themselves, independent analysts.

There are some who have taken the analysis and created nightmare, Malthusian scenarios, but the data and estimations concerning the range on how much oil is out there have given us a pretty good scientific estimate.

There are indeed some politically motivated reports of reserves, yes, but those concern comical overinflation of reserves on the part of OPEC members with no engineering basis in reality.

If you head to places like the OilDrum and others, they invariably simply aggregate the best available engineering data to see where that leads.

The bottom line is, yes, we have a pretty good idea. We don't know to the last exact barrel, but we don't need to in order to make good decisions.

If you disagree, then find some data that supports Darrins claim of it being 'equally possible' that there is 500 years worth of oil out there.

If not, then you simply have to acknowledge that the data shows we are very likely on the plateau and downward slope of a predictable production curve.

If you fail to acknowledge that, then you have failed to consider the problem in a logical manner, and we can finish the discussion on that note.

[RandomGuy]

So is methane, oil, gasoline, etc. in the chemistry view of things. We can easily make hydrogen using energy. However, it also occurs naturally like the others do. Do you really think that distinction matters?

You and I disagree there. So do others.

Who is this "we" in this case? Environmentalists? Politicians? Scaremongers?

I sure hope so.

I think the head start is accomplished. No more is needed unless you are one who wants the government to pick which companies to give a head start over others. I don't know about you, but I feel it is very anti-American to let the government pick winners and losers.

China has an ever-growing pot of money to work with. Europe taxes the hell out of petro. It is cost effective for them to do so. We have plenty of innovation happening already. There is a facility in Eugene Oregon that plans to put in a production facility for making solar cells, for the demand there already is.

We have the technology. That is not the problem. No head starts are needed. We just need the demand.

I'm saying you are 100% wrong about that aspect.

As for the rest of this:

Other governments are doing exactly that: picking winners and losers, because they have made the same deductions about energy that we have made here.

Other governments are not so slavishly devoted to the free market that they won't give their companies and industries the exact head start I am talking about here.

So you are, in essence, saying that your principles are more important than US competitiveness.

That is all well and good, but I would prefer US jobs over your principles. I don't think we should let that sector of our economy languish until the problem is painfully obvious to you.

[Wild Cobra]

Petroleum engineers, the oil companies themselves, independent analysts.

There are some who have taken the analysis and created nightmare, Malthusian scenarios, but the data and estimations concerning the range on how much oil is out there have given us a pretty good scientific estimate.

There are indeed some politically motivated reports of reserves, yes, but those concern comical overinflation of reserves on the part of OPEC members with no engineering basis in reality.

If you head to places like the OilDrum and others, they invariably simply aggregate the best available engineering data to see where that leads.

The bottom line is, yes, we have a pretty good idea. We don't know to the last exact barrel, but we don't need to in order to make good decisions.

If you disagree, then find some data that supports Darrins claim of it being 'equally possible' that there is 500 years worth of oil out there.

If not, then you simply have to acknowledge that the data shows we are very likely on the plateau and downward slope of a predictable production curve.

If you fail to acknowledge that, then you have failed to consider the problem in a logical manner, and we can finish the discussion on that note.
Yes, it's pointless to continue. The maximum is impossible to estimate when it is such a minuscule percentage of the earths crust. Anyone who tells you otherwise is blowing smoke up your ass. It defies sound scientific methodology to say we are on the right side of the hubbard curve.

[Wild Cobra]

As for the rest of this:

Other governments are doing exactly that: picking winners and losers, because they have made the same deductions about energy that we have made here.

That doesn't make it right.


Other governments are not so slavishly devoted to the free market that they won't give their companies and industries the exact head start I am talking about here.

No more of a head start is needed. these corporation do keep up technologically. What makes you think they don't understand it's in their best interest? Those who don't, those who want to suck the government teat, don't deserve to survive. they can develop with their own finds, or die with only old technology.


So you are, in essence, saying that your principles are more important than US competitiveness.

No, I am saying that you are wrong. I am saying the competitiveness is alive and well. What destroys it is governmental interference, picking the winners and losers. It takes out the competition of development.


That is all well and good, but I would prefer US jobs over your principles. I don't think we should let that sector of our economy languish until the problem is painfully obvious to you.

Absolutely a wrong conclusion of what would happen.

[RandomGuy]

Yes, it's pointless to continue. The maximum is impossible to estimate when it is such a minuscule percentage of the earths crust. Anyone who tells you otherwise is blowing smoke up your ass. It defies sound scientific methodology to say we are on the right side of the hubbard curve.

So you are both more of an expert on climate science than those who have PhDs in the discipline, and more of an expert on petroleum engineering and geology than people with PhD's in the discipline whose job it is to know.

Impressive.

I guess we can quit, because if you said it, it must be true. I am defeated.

Well played, sir. I have no reposte to "nyah, nyah, nyah".

:depressed

[RandomGuy]

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Hyrogen is not a form of energy. It is a form of energy storage.


So is methane, oil, gasoline, etc. in the chemistry view of things. We can easily make hydrogen using energy. However, it also occurs naturally like the others do. Do you really think that distinction matters?

The distinction matters because it shows your conceptual framework regarding energy is flawed.

The distinction being that hydrogen itself is not present in its elemental, usable form in any usable quantity.

For hydrogen to be useful in a mechanical/chemical sense requires energy. As a chemist, you are familiar with the concepts of energy of activation, enthalpy, and so forth that are measures of how energy used/released in chemical processes.

In this case it takes MORE energy to make hydrogen than you get out of burning it.

That energy must come from SOMEWHERE.

That is decidedly different than oil/methane, etc. Those provide a net amount of useful energy, even after the extraction and refining processes.

Those are true sources of useful energy and, as we have discussed and agreed on here, they have varying degrees of net usable energy per extracted unit. We have also agreed that the efficiency of those sources will fall, as opposed to renewables that will, over time, rise in efficiency.

[Wild Cobra]

The distinction matters because it shows your conceptual framework regarding energy is flawed.

You know better. That's just a cheap excuse to focus on an angle that isn't important on this discussion. It only matters to know that it takes energy to create it. The semantics are less important, Chump.


The distinction being that hydrogen itself is not present in its elemental, usable form in any usable quantity.

True, but it is still a fuel. We are talking about energy and fuel, right? The fact that we have to make it doesn't matter. We make ethanol and methanol as well.

This is not the argument to focus on.


For hydrogen to be useful in a mechanical/chemical sense requires energy. As a chemist, you are familiar with the concepts of energy of activation, enthalpy, and so forth that are measures of how energy used/released in chemical processes.

Have you missed the numerous time I have pointed that out?


In this case it takes MORE energy to make hydrogen than you get out of burning it.

That's true with anything we make, including ethanol and methanol.


That energy must come from SOMEWHERE.

Duh...

You know I know this. Thinl you're showing off to your fan club or something?


That is decidedly different than oil/methane, etc. Those provide a net amount of useful energy, even after the extraction and refining processes.

Except that ethanol, methanol, and hydrogen can use solar energy as their primary energy input. All the energy necessary to create these can come from the sun. It's just too costly right now.


Those are true sources of useful energy and, as we have discussed and agreed on here, they have varying degrees of net usable energy per extracted unit. We have also agreed that the efficiency of those sources will fall, as opposed to renewables that will, over time, rise in efficiency.
What is the pint of all this rambling anyway? Like to see yourself type?

This pisses me off. It pisses me off because you should know I already know all this.

Again, what is the point of this rambling? Just because I'm willing to call hydrogen a fuel?

[Wild Cobra]

So you are both more of an expert on climate science than those who have PhDs in the discipline, and more of an expert on petroleum engineering and geology than people with PhD's in the discipline whose job it is to know.

Impressive.

I guess we can quit, because if you said it, it must be true. I am defeated.

Well played, sir. I have no reposte to "nyah, nyah, nyah".

:depressed
If those in the petroleum industry are willing to say we are running out, then they are no better than the climatologists who are alarmists. There is no way they have probed enough of the earths geology to ethically make statements that we are almost depleted. It simply gets harder as we have to go deeper. When it comes to global warming, I have devoted a great amount of time learning real aspects on the topic.

[boutons_deux]

There's an excellent series running now on Science Channel "Future Power".

Excellent perspective on how fucked the planet is in its needs for energy growth, even dirty energy growth.

[Wild Cobra]

There's an excellent series running now on Science Channel "Future Power".

Excellent perspective on how fucked the planet is in its needs for energy growth, even dirty energy growth.
Damn...

Where's my cable remote. I seldom watch cable!

[RandomGuy]

You know better. That's just a cheap excuse to focus on an angle that isn't important on this discussion. It only matters to know that it takes energy to create it. The semantics are less important, Chump.

True, but it is still a fuel. We are talking about energy and fuel, right? The fact that we have to make it doesn't matter. We make ethanol and methanol as well.

This is not the argument to focus on.

Have you missed the numerous time I have pointed that out?

That's true with anything we make, including ethanol and methanol.

Duh...

You know I know this. Thinl you're showing off to your fan club or something?

Except that ethanol, methanol, and hydrogen can use solar energy as their primary energy input. All the energy necessary to create these can come from the sun. It's just too costly right now.

What is the pint of all this rambling anyway? Like to see yourself type?

This pisses me off. It pisses me off because you should know I already know all this.

Again, what is the point of this rambling? Just because I'm willing to call hydrogen a fuel?

Fuel yes, source of energy, no. You seemed to miss that distinction.

Now you are quibbling to avoid admitting a mistake, as you often do.

[RandomGuy]

If those in the petroleum industry are willing to say we are running out, then they are no better than the climatologists who are alarmists. There is no way they have probed enough of the earths geology to ethically make statements that we are almost depleted. It simply gets harder as we have to go deeper. When it comes to global warming, I have devoted a great amount of time learning real aspects on the topic.

No one is saying oil is 'almost depleted'. No one. We a lot of oil left to discover and exploit. That isn't the real problem, yet.

The era of increasing ROIE for oil and other fossil fuels is coming to an end. The scale and timing of the economic effects of that are debatable, but unavoidable.

You have already acknowledged that the ROIE can only go down, even in this post.

The only thing left is to determine a course of action.

You would rather cede an economic competitive advantage to other countries, and force us into, at best, a sluggish economy for decades, than to do something.

I find that deeply irresponsible, as I find your position on global warming.

"Do nothing" you argue. "Everything will be fine, there is no possibility I am wrong, and there is no real risk".

Sounds a lot like a drunk rationalizing driving home to me.

[Wild Cobra]

Fuel yes, source of energy, no. You seemed to miss that distinction.

Now you are quibbling to avoid admitting a mistake, as you often do.
Then oil is not a source of energy either. It stores the energy it took to make it.

Just where do you want to draw that line at?

Look...

Hydrogen is not the root source of the energy it contains. However, it contains usable energy, and is therefore, a source of energy. Just not the root source.

[Wild Cobra]

The only thing left is to determine a course of action.

No action required. Let the free market work.

You would rather cede an economic competitive advantage to other countries, and force us into, at best, a sluggish economy for decades, than to do something.

I don't fall prey to this fear that you are under. I trust the competitive nature we have. Sorry you don't. You loss.

[DarrinS]

I wonder how many of those Honda Clarity hydro fuel cell vehicles were leased in California?

[Wild Cobra]

I wonder how many of those Honda Clarity hydro fuel cell vehicles were leased in California?
Well, Wiki is usually accurate; from wiki: Honda FCX Clarity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_FCX_Clarity):


There were reports that previous generation fuel-cell cars from Honda cost more than $1 million to build in 2005. Some estimated that Honda had cut its production costs to between $120,000 and $140,000 per vehicle.

The FCX Clarity is currently available only in Southern California in the U.S., where "fast-fill" hydrogen stations are available, and as of 2010, 19 FCX Clarity are leased for US$600 a month which includes collision coverage, zero-cost maintenance and roadside assistance. In 2010, it is reported that there are a total of 50 FCX Clarity available for lease in the U.S. and Honda intends to increase that to 200 in about a year. Honda believes it could start mass producing vehicles based on the FCX Clarity by the year 2018.

It is reported in 2009 that hydrogen that made from natural gas cost about $5 to $10 per kilogram in California. Although it was more than double the equivalent amount of gasoline, fuel-cell cars have at least double the efficiency of similar models with gasoline engine. FCX Clarity averaged 60 miles per kilogram.

[RandomGuy]

I don't fall prey to this fear that you are under.

Prudent risk management is not about fear.

It is about mitigating loss and maximizing gain over the long term.

CEO's of large companies go sometimes go so far as to appoint executives to help with risk management for this very reason.

[admiralsnackbar]

Prudent risk management is not about fear.

It is about mitigating loss and maximizing gain over the long term.

CEO's of large companies go sometimes go so far as to appoint executives to help with risk management for this very reason.

They used to, anyway...

[Winehole23]

arresting headline, but I'm not the wonk to suss out the analysis: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378775312014759

[Winehole23]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/13/business/global/japan-says-it-is-first-to-tap-methane-hydrate-deposit.html

[Winehole23]

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/512321/safer-nuclear-power-at-half-the-price/

[RandomGuy]

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/512321/safer-nuclear-power-at-half-the-price/

Nukes?

No thanks.

After Fukushima, it seems that the costs of risk are far higher than I am willing to bear, regardless of he cost of construction.

[RandomGuy]

arresting headline, but I'm not the wonk to suss out the analysis: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378775312014759

Hmmm.


We modeled wind, solar, and storage to meet demand for 1/5 of the USA electric grid

Basically they were looking for the "least cost" way of meeting a portion of our electrical demands.

If you are going renewable, go all the way was their conclusion. Their model showed that renewable power was fully capable of meeting the entire chunk of demand they studied, and then some.

Some caveats:
Fossil power is still required, albeit vanishingly small.
Renewables require geographic distribution combined with multiple sources to be effective.

Some interesting:
The resultant bit produced, at peak, up to 3 times the amount of power needed.

The outgrowth of this is that the study suggests that the larger you go, the less it costs per unit, and the more fossil fuels you can replace.

[Winehole23]

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/03/20/us-oil-production-set-to-surpass-imports-for-first-time-in-20-years

[TeyshaBlue]

By 2014? Seems a bit quick, IMO.

[boutons_deux]

Nukes?

No thanks.

After Fukushima, it seems that the costs of risk are far higher than I am willing to bear, regardless of he cost of construction.

Ratepayers get the shaft in San Onofre fiasco

You probably know San Onofre as the full-figured fiasco overlooking the Pacific Ocean near the Orange/San Diego county line. Beginning in 2004, Southern California Edison, the nuclear power plant's principal owner, oversaw a $770-million project to replace its two aging steam generators with new models. The new units, which were supposed to last 20 years, lasted scarcely 20 months before showing alarmingly severe wear and tear.

The plant was shut down. Neither of its two units, which are designated units 2 and 3, has generated a practical watt since the end of January 2012. They may never operate again. (The troubled Unit 1 was permanently shuttered in 1992.)


But while San Onofre's electrons are but a memory, the billing lingers on — nearly $1 billion charged to ratepayers of Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric Co., the plant's minority owner, over the last year, according to the Public Utility Commission's Division of Ratepayer Advocates. The money is still flowing out of the pockets of the two utilities' 6.4 million billed customers at the rate of more than $68 million a month. Some of that may be refunded to customers, but possibly not for years.


With so much money at stake, it's unsurprising that in recent months the question of who pays for San Onofre, how much, and when has dominated the discussions about the plant before the PUC. It's a fair bet that, in time, the volume of legal briefs on those issues will far exceed those relating to the more basic questions of what happened and whose fault it is.

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/1780/article/p2p-74782404/

[Winehole23]

By 2014? Seems a bit quick, IMO.I wonder what sort of assumptions about demand are baked in. Even if the projection proves accurate, it's just a baby step toward energy independence.

[boutons_deux]

Nukes?

Nuclear Energy: Moniz has been embraced by the Nuclear Energy Institute, a lobbying group, for his long-time support of the industry. In 2011, he wrote that it would be a “mistake” to allow Japan’s nuclear disaster to “cause governments to abandon nuclear power and its benefits” due to his belief that nuclear power can be a partial solution to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions in the long-term.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/03/04/1625561/ernest-moniz

Seems like he "supports" everything, but as DoE guy, which will he prioritize?

[TeyshaBlue]

I wonder what sort of assumptions about demand are baked in. Even if the projection proves accurate, it's just a baby step toward energy independence.

Got the impression he was using the 18.5 million barrels per day figure.

[Winehole23]

not to be disdained, old-fashioned conservation:


While there is disagreement among politicians about the role of government spending and government regulations to spur cost-effective energy efficiency investments, politicians of all political stripes agree that knocking down market barriers that keep Americans from saving money is a worthy task.

Within this context, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) released a new report (http://aceee.org/research-report/e136) on Monday highlighting 16 policies that would use market forces to spur additional cost-effective investments in energy efficiency while helping to surmount market barriers that hinder these investments. In total, these policies could save consumers and businesses nearly $1 trillion over the 2014-2030 period, considering both the energy bill savings and the cost of the energy efficiency investments.
The United States has become much more energy efficient in the last few decades, but there are still large, cost-effective opportunities available to advance efficiency even further, while improving the economy at the same time. However, a variety of market failures and market barriers contribute to keeping us from fully realizing our energy efficiency potential (http://aceee.org/research-report/e121). Examples of such market barriers include lack of information that would help would-be purchasers and tenants identify more efficient buildings, and “split incentives,” where one party (e.g., landlords) purchases equipment while another party (e.g., tenants) pays the operating costs of this equipment through their energy bills.


The new ACEEE report, Overcoming Market Barriers and Using Market Forces to Advance Energy Efficiency (http://aceee.org/research-report/e136), discusses several targeted policies that leverage market mechanisms in order to address specific market failures, without requiring substantial spending or government mandates. For example, the development of a comprehensive building labeling and benchmarking program would allow purchasers and tenants to identify efficient homes and commercial buildings and could save consumers and businesses approximately $60 billion between 2014 and 2030. Even more impressive are the benefits gained from adjusting corporate tax legislation to remove hidden barriers in the tax code. These adjustments would encourage the replacement of inefficient equipment and remove regulatory barriers to combined heat and power projects. These two policies alone could save the economy close to $300 billion.


The report also includes policy interventions targeted at residential and commercial buildings, the industrial sector, and the transportation sector, as well as a number of policies with economy-wide benefits. For each measure, the report provides a brief description of the policy, its legislative history, general estimates of associated costs and benefits, and recommendations about future policy design. By acting on these recommendations, Congress and state legislatures can light a way forward towards a stronger economy and a brighter energy future.

http://aceee.org/blog/2013/03/using-market-help-leverage-increased-
http://aceee.org/research-report/e136

[Winehole23]

Got the impression he was using the 18.5 million barrels per day figure.what's the finger in the wind detect wrt US energy demand short term? remains depressed? could it turn around?

[TeyshaBlue]

Since that seems tied to the economy, I'd say short term remains depressed to neutral.

[boutons_deux]

not to be disdained, old-fashioned conservation:

http://aceee.org/blog/2013/03/using-market-help-leverage-increased-
http://aceee.org/research-report/e136

Conservation is really the cheapest, and fastest, way to go. Coupled with wind/solar,

Although Repugs/oilcos will obstruct it, ramping up federal taxes on transport fuel to significant levels would get Americans to switch to higher mileage vehicules, and alternative transport fuel. The revenue could finance all kinds of low-energy infrastructure and research.

But America is operated by corporations that profit from the unsustainable status quo, those profits used to maintain that status quo.

[boutons_deux]

People are sensitive to quite small increases in gas price, esp the 47% who scrape by.

Gas prices cut into spring break travel
http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-gas-prices-spring-break-travel-20130320,0,6223561.story

http://www.eia.gov/oog/info/twip/gtpsusm.gif

[Winehole23]

Conservation is really the cheapest, and fastest, way to go.easy as pie, if the information is made more accessible. people care about that stuff now.

25 years ago, not so much.

[boutons_deux]

easy as pie, if the information is made more accessible. people care about that stuff now.

25 years ago, not so much.

When gas price exploded after '67 and '73 wars, there was a huge movement to lower mileage cars.

Letting the market (oilcos and traders) set the price is not going to work. Govt tax policy is more stable and out of the control of the market.

[LnGrrrR]

I won't be satisfied until we have Dyson spheres. We need to get working on the Space Elevator, asap.

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.google.com/search?q=mass+transit+efficiency
Interesting results for that google search.

http://www.lafn.org/~dave/trans/energy/does_mt_saveE.html

http://www.templetons.com/brad/transit-myth.html

Both articles make some good points, and indicate that mass transit isn't as efficient as people think.

I think I have to re-think my assumption that mass-transit is generally more energy-efficient than individual vehicles.

The big winner in the second article seems to be electric scooters.

Not that I want to be tooling around in an electric scooter during Texas' 100+ degree summers. Fuck that.

It seems you are fairly right about that.

I decided to pull up a report I could find. The Portland area Max (lightrail) had a 2008 passenger revenue of $80,815 thousand. Operating expenses were $462,967 thousand. For every $1.00 provided by riders, $4.33 was subsidized from some other source.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Politics/th_max2008_zpsfa18dba8.jpg (http://trimet.org/pdfs/publications/TriMet_2008_Annual_Report.pdf)

Do you all really want to expand public transportation?

[boutons_deux]

I decided to pull up a report I could find. The Portland area Max (lightrail) had a 2008 passenger revenue of $80,815 thousand. Operating expenses were $462,967 thousand. For every $1.00 provided by riders, $4.33 was subsidized from some other source.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Politics/th_max2008_zpsfa18dba8.jpg (http://trimet.org/pdfs/publications/TriMet_2008_Annual_Report.pdf)

Do you all really want to expand public transportation?

Until the p/t network is fully developed so that people can really get around and can depend on it, the ramp up will be slow

[Wild Cobra]

Until the p/t network is fully developed so that people can really get around and can depend on it, the ramp up will be slow
Slow?

Our light system has been operating since the 80's. The subsidies keep becoming a larger percentage. Not smaller.

[boutons_deux]

Slow?

Our light system has been operating since the 80's. The subsidies keep becoming a larger percentage. Not smaller.

A p/t system has to extensive, all over the center and suburban areas, like London or Paris.


This "plan" looks pretty good

http://blog.oregonlive.com/news_impact/2009/04/rail.jpg

Paris:
http://parisapartment.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/paris-metro-map_1_.gif

London

http://www.afn.org/~alplatt/tubemap.gif


Paris and London, of course a lot bigger, denser than Portland, have been building for 100+ years, and are not money makers, but keeps 100Ks of cars out of city center, and allow Ms of people to live without being drained by $100s/month in car expenses.

The heavily suburbanized, US sunbelt is pretty much condemned to private car transport for many decades.

Did you see the transport documentary "Who Framed Roger Rabbit"? Explained how GM killed the LA area light rail system decades ago to assure itself a car market.

[TeyshaBlue]

Did you see the transport documentary "Who Framed Roger Rabbit"? Explained how GM killed the LA area light rail system decades ago to assure itself a car market.
lol documentary. You manage to make one salient point then go bat-shit crazy.

http://blogging.la/2007/03/09/top-la-legends-1-the-auto-industry-killed-los-angeles-streetcars/

http://www.1134.org/stan/ul/GM-et-al.html

lol simpleton.

[boutons_deux]

TB :lol GFY, stalker

[TeyshaBlue]

:cry Stop stalking me!:cryr

lol...you got bitch slapped again.

[Wild Cobra]

A p/t system has to extensive, all over the center and suburban areas, like London or Paris.


This "plan" looks pretty good

Nobody wants it. Vancouver says "NO" to the extension. They say they will not help pay for it. So does Lake Oswego. Voters have repeatedly said no to expansion because of the costs, but the city planners keep building it. It is fucking expensive. Look at just the riders vs. employee costs. They are paying the Max employees $128 million in wages and collecting $80 million in fares. That's not the end of the operational costs which total $463 million.

So many of these stops become hangouts for gangs, and associated crimes.

[boutons_deux]

lol...you got bitch slapped again.

TB :lol only in your self-congratulating fantasies

[TeyshaBlue]

GM didn't kill the LA Rail system. You're dismissed.

[boutons_deux]

"Clearly, GM waged a war on electric traction. It was indeed an all out assault, but by no means the single reason for the failure of rapid transit. Also, it is just as clear that actions and inactions by government contributed significantly to the elimination of electric traction"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy

TB :lol

[Wild Cobra]

100 cars in 45 cities...

Wow...

That really had an impact... not...

[boutons_deux]

100 cars in 45 cities...

Wow...

That really had an impact... not...

"nipped in the bud"

"aborted before viability"

[TeyshaBlue]

"Clearly, GM waged a war on electric traction. It was indeed an all out assault, but by no means the single reason for the failure of rapid transit. Also, it is just as clear that actions and inactions by government contributed significantly to the elimination of electric traction"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy

TB :lol

lol failiure to read my links.

lol wikipedia.

And thanks for bolstering my point and bitch slapping yourself again. GM did not kill LA light rail.

[RandomGuy]

I decided to pull up a report I could find. The Portland area Max (lightrail) had a 2008 passenger revenue of $80,815 thousand. Operating expenses were $462,967 thousand. For every $1.00 provided by riders, $4.33 was subsidized from some other source.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Politics/th_max2008_zpsfa18dba8.jpg (http://trimet.org/pdfs/publications/TriMet_2008_Annual_Report.pdf)

Do you all really want to expand public transportation?

Your analysis here is incomplete.

Confirmation bias is the seeking and filtering of information that reinforces ones pre-conceived ideas. You have, yet again, done that here.

Missing:
Externalities, e.g. what other benefits might have been provided by the transportation to the wider economy? How much did that contribute to the government coffers?

Alternatives, e.g. how much subsidies did other forms of public spending on transportation cost, relative to their benefits?

Publicly maintained roads subsidize users of those roads, at the expense of those who don't dirctly use them. They have similar economic benefits too.



The issues ever quite end up as simple as people like you would wish us all to believe they are.

Sorry. Your version of reality is dangeriously flawed, IMO.

[Winehole23]

cost of wind/solar energy has dropped dropped dramatically in the last five years, see page ten @:

http://www.lazard.com/PDF/Levelized%20Cost%20of%20Energy%20-%20Version%208.0.pdf

[Winehole23]

Australia's solar researchers have converted over 40 percent of the sunlight hitting a solar system into electricity, the highest efficiency ever reported. A key part of the prototype's design is the use of a custom optical bandpass filter to capture sunlight that is normally wasted by commercial solar cells on towers and convert it to electricity at a higher efficiency than the solar cells themselves ever could.http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141207091648.htm

[boutons_deux]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141207091648.htm

another article last week using a different, I think a quantum approach, got conversion up to 60%.

So much of this research now that, unlike fusion research, that it has to pay off much sooner than later.

[boutons_deux]

Energy efficiency could cost U.S. utilities $48 billion (http://fuelfix.com/blog/2014/12/08/report-energy-efficiency-could-cost-u-s-utilities-48-billion/)

Two trends in the power sector — the expansion of distributed generation and advances in energy efficiency — could cost U.S. utilities up to $48 billion annually by 2025,

based on models that examined improvements in solar panels, electricity storage and other trends that will impact the bottom lines of U.S. utility companies.

Distributed generation refers to power generators – much smaller than typical power plants – installed at or near the sites they serve. They often use renewable resources like solar or wind power and are posing a conundrum for traditional utilities because they allow customers to handle large portions of their power consumption internally.

An Accenture survey found that 61 percent of utility executives expect significant or moderate revenue reductions due to distributed generation technology — up from 43 percent a year ago.

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2014/12/08/report-energy-efficiency-could-cost-u-s-utilities-48-billion/

Y'all's Repug assholes are doing everything they can to protect BigCoal and BigElectric, as usual, being on the wrong side of history.

Kill efficiency standards, kill solar/wind subsidies, penalize distributed residential/commercial solar, kill RET/renewable energy targets, etc, etc.

[Wild Cobra]

What a deceptive article.

Boutons...

Do you know why, or do I need spell it out?

[boutons_deux]

Rooftop Solar Cost Competitive with the Grid in Much of the U.S.

According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), the cost of putting solar panels on a typical American house has fallen by some 70 percent over the last decade and a half. And a recent report from Deutsche Bank shows that solar has already achieved so-called “price parity” with fossil fuel-based grid power in 10 U.S. states.

Deutsche Bank goes on to say that solar electricity is on track to be as cheap or cheaper than average electricity-bill prices in all but three states by 2016—assuming,that is, that the federal government maintains the 30 percent solar investment tax credit it currently offers homeowners on installation and equipment costs.

But therein could lie the rub. The federal tax credit for residential solar installations expires in 2016, and it’s anybody’s guess whether and to what extent the Republican-dominated Congress will renew it. Legislative analysts report that while Congress is unlikely to abandon the program entirely, big cutbacks could be on the way.

But Deutsche Bank maintains that even if the credit is reduced to 10 percent, solar power would still achieve price parity with conventional electricity in some 36 states by 2016.

Meanwhile, homeowners in states where additional local incentives are available and there’s lots of sunshine—such as across the Southwest—may in fact already be able to power their homes cheaper with the sun than from the grid. Homeowners looking to go solar should check out the Database of State Incentives for Renewable and Efficiency (DSIRE), a free online database of all the different state and local incentives for solar and other forms of renewable energy.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rooftop-solar-cost-competitive-with-the-grid-in-much-of-the-u-s/?WT.mc_id=SA_SP_20141208

[boutons_deux]

Report: Distributed-Renewables Disruption Will Reduce Utility Revenues By Up To $123 Billion A Year By 2025


http://cleantechnica.com/files/2014/12/image22-570x406.jpg

The ongoing growth of distributed renewable energy generation throughout the US and Europe will see utility-company revenues reduced by as much as $123 billion a year by 2025, according to a new report from the consulting company Accenture.

That new report — titled the Digitally Enabled Grid report — clearly states that if the utilities wish to maintain a market share comparable to that of today, the companies will need to “fundamentally transform their business models.”

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/12/29/report-distributed-renewables-disruption-will-reduce-utility-revenues-us123-billion-year-2025/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29

I expect huge, transformative breakthrough(s) in battery tech (high density storage, cheaper, smaller, longer life), which will allow Ms of home and businesses with sufficient solar to go off-grid.

[CosmicCowboy]

WTF are you talking about?

That's what state and federal taxes on fuel are for.

Subsidized my ass. We already pay for them.


Fuel taxes can't even pay to maintain the roads we have, much less build new ones.

The interstate highway system as we know it was originally built as a function of national defense to allow convoys including tanks to easily navigate across country to critical locations.

[boutons_deux]

The Gas Tax Is Running on Empty



http://images.bwbx.io/cms/2014-07-17/pol_gastax30__01__315inline.jpg

Over the next decade the fund has a projected shortfall of $170 billion. The White House is pushing a plan that would generate four years of highway funds in part by closing some corporate tax loopholes. Republicans strongly oppose the idea.

First passed in 1956 to pay for the more than 40,000 miles of road in the Interstate Highway System, it’s been stuck at 18.4¢ a gallon since 1993—the longest it’s ever gone without an increase.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-07-17/gas-tax-cant-fill-up-federal-highway-trust-fund

Repugs will very certainly fuck up the federal highway fund funding and fedaral roads, bridges, they fuck up everything.

[cantthinkofanything]

The Gas Tax Is Running on Empty



Over the next decade the fund has a projected shortfall of $170 billion. The White House is pushing a plan that would generate four years of highway funds in part by closing some corporate tax loopholes. Republicans strongly oppose the idea.

First passed in 1956 to pay for the more than 40,000 miles of road in the Interstate Highway System, it’s been stuck at 18.4¢ a gallon since 1993—the longest it’s ever gone without an increase.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-07-17/gas-tax-cant-fill-up-federal-highway-trust-fund

Repugs will very certainly fuck up the federal highway fund funding and fedaral roads, bridges, they fuck up everything.




What if they buildided more toll roads?

[boutons_deux]

What if they buildided more toll roads?

new roads aren't the problem or solution. it's maintaining current roads and bridges.

The Repugs will block ALL solutions, ALL progress. It's their ideology. Govt cannot be allowed to serve the nation's needs.

privatization always works, is always better the govt (except when taxpayers bail out private losers)

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/terrihall/2014/06/the-real-story-behind-cintra-teetering-on-edge-of-bankruptcy-on-sh-130/

[cantthinkofanything]

new roads aren't the problem or solution. it's maintaining current roads and bridges.

The Repugs will block ALL solutions, ALL progress. It's their ideology. Govt cannot be allowed to serve the nation's needs.

privatization always works, is always better the govt (except when taxpayers bail out private losers)

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/terrihall/2014/06/the-real-story-behind-cintra-teetering-on-edge-of-bankruptcy-on-sh-130/

Just build the toll roads and leave the others as is or spend whatever is left to improve them.

[boutons_deux]

Just build the toll roads and leave the others as is or spend whatever is left to improve them.

:lol

[boutons_deux]

Why 2015 Will Be the Year of Solar Energy

The Year Solar Caught On in the U.S.

2014 has been the start of consumers and utilities alike understanding the positive impact solar can make. GTM Research expects about 6.5 GW of solar energy to be installed in the U.S. in 2014, enough to power nearly 1.1 million homes. But over half of those installations fall in a relatively small area in California and Arizona, so this isn't a nationwide trend -- yet.

You can see below that 10 states (not including Hawaii, where solar has long been cost-competitive) are now seeing residential solar systems cost-competitive with the grid, and by 2017 the estimated number jumps to 28 states. In 2015, a growing infrastructure from solar installers will bring solar to new states, expanding the industry's reach.

http://o.aolcdn.com/hss/storage/midas/b2422e5a0d8606f3f2c4395f92e436c0/201320196/rooftop-solar-competitiveness-infographic.jpg


http://o.aolcdn.com/hss/storage/midas/84e4fc7def3e566907dfb2f6d1bf62d0/201320202/solarcity-addressable-market.png

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2014/12/31/2015-solar-energy/

[Winehole23]

Swamp coolers?



The notion of a giant utility regarding the melting and refreezing ice cubes as a realistic way of storing power would have seemed fanciful a few years ago—or even 12 months ago.

But next year, pursuant to a deal announced with utility Southern California Edison in November, Ice Energy (http://www.ice-energy.com/) will install 2,000 of its $10,000 Ice Bear units throughout Orange County, California. Erected adjacent to air conditioners, they use cheap electricity at night to turn tap water into a 450-pound ice block. During the day, refrigerant liquid is funneled from air conditioners through the Ice Bear, which cools it off and sends it back to the AC unit. The process saves an amount of electricity equivalent to taking a 5-ton commercial air conditioner offline for six hours. “We’re able to provide cooling without using any electricity other than using the fan,” says chief executive officer Mike Hopkins. (Watch a video on how the machines work below.) In all, the Ice Bears will provide SCE with the equivalent of 26 megawatts of storage capacity—enough to power several thousand homes for a few hours.

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_juice/2015/01/battery_and_storage_infrastructure_is_the_next_gro wth_area_for_energy_here.html

[Winehole23]

In addition to Ice Energy, SCE contracted with three large companies that provide different varieties of battery-based storage: 100 megawatts of free-standing battery capacity from AES (http://www.aesenergystorage.com/2014/11/05/aes-help-sce-meet-local-power-reliability-20-year-power-purchase-agreement-energy-storage-california-new-facility-will-provide-100-mw-interconnected-storage-equivalent-200-mw/) , 50 megawatts of battery systems that fit inside buildings (http://advmicrogrid.com/AMS_Release.pdf) from Advanced Microgrid Solutions (http://advmicrogrid.com/), and another 85 megawatts of storage from Stem (http://www.stem.com/), which relies on advanced predictive analysis to dial building and battery usage up and down.



What’s so great about storage? After all, batteries and the Ice Bear don’t create new power. But they’re less noisy and intrusive than power plants—and provoke much less NIMBYism. The Ice Bears, for example, reside unobtrusively on roofs and in mechanical rooms near existing air-conditioning equipment. They start up more rapidly than power plants. And they make it easier for systems to manage the rising amount of intermittent energy coursing through the system—wind power that ebbs in calm periods and solar power that goes dark at night. “It allows you to store energy at times when it is either less expensive to generate, or is cleaner energy, and then discharge it when you have a need for it,” SCE’s Cushnie says.



This is good news for companies like Ice Energy, but also for other entities in the business of providing power. The Imperial Irrigation District (http://www.iid.com/), which provides electricity and water to California’s Imperial Valley, was ordered to increase its reliability as part of a settlement after a blackout in 2011 (http://www.ferc.gov/media/news-releases/2014/2014-3/08-07-14.asp#.VK7MrXuznfc). A few years ago, says Bruce Townsend, superintendent alternative energy at the Imperial Irrigation District, the only way to do so “would have been through fossil-fuel generation.” But instead of building a new gas-powered plant, IID is constructing a 20 megawatt battery (http://www.desertsun.com/story/tech/science/energy/2014/12/28/imperial-irrigation-district-battery/20982139/).

[boutons_deux]

Wind power saved the Texas power grid from the Polar Vortex

Texas is a wind power (http://www.treehugger.com/tag/wind-power/) superstar. The state went from 184 megawatts of wind capacity in 2000 to 12,212 megawatts in 2012, and I'm sure that when the 2013 numbers are out, we'll see a much higher number.

That compares very favorably to the wind power #2 state, which is Caliofornia with 5,549MW in 2012, less than half the wind capacity of Texas.

http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2014/01/texas-wind-power-map.jpg

This investment in clean energy (http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/) saved Texas' bacon during the polar vortex that dropped temperatures across most of North-America (check out these amazing photos for 'Chiberia' (http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/blogs/greetings-from-chiberia-11-surreal-shots-of-the-windy-citys)). After all, record cold weather means record energy demand; on Tuesday at 8 a.m. CST, demand reached a never seen before peak of 57,277 megawatts (http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/01/07/utilities-ercot-cold-idINL2N0KH0WQ20140107).

Thankfully: "Sufficient generation and higher wind output from West Texas wind farms boosted the state's electric supply Tuesday compared to Monday when the grid operator declared an emergency as power plants shut unexpectedly, reducing supply."

Texas is not the only state where wind played a crucial role in the past few days. The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) has a piece about it here (http://www.aweablog.org/blog/post/wind-energy-helps-ward-off-power-outages).

http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/wind-power-saved-texas-power-grid-polar-vortex.html

[RandomGuy]

What a deceptive article.

Boutons...

Do you know why, or do I need spell it out?

Oh please.

Dazzle us with your critical thinking skills.

[RandomGuy]

Fuel taxes can't even pay to maintain the roads we have, much less build new ones.

The interstate highway system as we know it was originally built as a function of national defense to allow convoys including tanks to easily navigate across country to critical locations.

Correct. We have kept building new roads for decades, without increasing the taxes meant to maintain them.

Not hard to see that system running a deficit, as our infrastructure is doing nationally.

We will need to spend money to keep our country from literally falling apart. I wonder who has to die to make the Norquist motivated dumbassery of never raising taxes for any reason whatsoever into the "also ran" idea it deserves to be?

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21605932-country-where-everyone-drives-america-has-shoddy-roads-bridging-gap
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-21/summers-urges-major-spending-plan-to-fix-u-s-infrastructure.html

Estimated required maintenance spending by 2020:
3.6T

http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/

[boutons_deux]

"Fuel taxes can't even pay to maintain the roads we have, much less build new ones"

It worked fine for about 50 years, then the Repugs got into power in the early 90s, and, since then, they have accelerated America's (infrastructure) decline while protecting/enriching BigCorp and 1%.

What's your solution, O Adored Businessman?

[boutons_deux]

"Estimated required maintenance spending by 2020:
3.6T"

estimated wasted on MIC corporate welfare by 2020: $2.5T

then add in all the $Ts avoided/evaded by BigCorp and the 1%.

America is EXTREMELY wealthy, can pay for all its solutions, but the plutocratic oligarchy has fucked America.

[Winehole23]

...

[boutons_deux]

Repugs will block it, but anyway ...

Obama administration sets agenda to modernize energy infrastructure

The Obama administration on Tuesday announced plans to modernize the country's aging energy infrastructure and make it more resilient to challenges ranging from extreme weather to changing domestic energy production.

The Quadrennial Energy Review, more than a year in the making, recommends a program that would accelerate natural gas (http://www.reuters.com/sectors/industries/overview?industryCode=185) pipeline replacement, modernize the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and award up to $350 million to help states improve the reliability of their electricity delivery.

The report, which is the administration's first attempt to analyze the country's energy systems, highlights several opportunities to overhaul and invest in U.S. energy transmission, storage and distribution networks and offers policy recommendations for lawmakers and officials.

The massive expansion of domestic oil and gas production, and the ensuing congestion on rails and waterways to transport these fuels, and the rapid boom in renewable energy have major energy policy implications, as does the vulnerability of the electrical grid to extreme weather and cyber attacks, the report said.

Addressing these issues "will require action by many parties in the private sector, and coordinated public sector action at the federal, state, and local levels," the White House said in a fact sheet.

President Barack Obama called for the launch of the QER when he announced his Climate Action Plan in June 2013.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/21/us-usa-energy-infrastructure-idUSKBN0NC1ME20150421?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews

[Wild Cobra]

Repugs will block it, but anyway ...

Obama administration sets agenda to modernize energy infrastructure

The Obama administration on Tuesday announced plans to modernize the country's aging energy infrastructure and make it more resilient to challenges ranging from extreme weather to changing domestic energy production.

The Quadrennial Energy Review, more than a year in the making, recommends a program that would accelerate natural gas (http://www.reuters.com/sectors/industries/overview?industryCode=185) pipeline replacement, modernize the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and award up to $350 million to help states improve the reliability of their electricity delivery.

The report, which is the administration's first attempt to analyze the country's energy systems, highlights several opportunities to overhaul and invest in U.S. energy transmission, storage and distribution networks and offers policy recommendations for lawmakers and officials.

The massive expansion of domestic oil and gas production, and the ensuing congestion on rails and waterways to transport these fuels, and the rapid boom in renewable energy have major energy policy implications, as does the vulnerability of the electrical grid to extreme weather and cyber attacks, the report said.

Addressing these issues "will require action by many parties in the private sector, and coordinated public sector action at the federal, state, and local levels," the White House said in a fact sheet.

President Barack Obama called for the launch of the QER when he announced his Climate Action Plan in June 2013.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/21/us-usa-energy-infrastructure-idUSKBN0NC1ME20150421?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews




Demonrats just love to spend other people's money.

[boutons_deux]

Demonrats just love to spend other people's money.

ideologically blinded assholes can't see for the shit in the eyes. EVERYBODY agrees the US electrical grid is both antiquated AND cyber-attack vulnerable.

[Winehole23]

http://fs-unep-centre.org/sites/default/files/webbild_0.jpg


http://fs-unep-centre.org/sites/default/files/attachments/key_findings.pdf

[Winehole23]

http://assets.bwbx.io/images/iHBkHx2ieDDU/v1/-1x-1.png
http://assets.bwbx.io/images/iW6v8tdmSts8/v1/-1x-1.png

The first of these charts, showing the drop in the cost of batteries, is from a study (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n4/full/nclimate2564.html) in Nature Climate Change by Bjorn Nykvist and Mans Nilsson. The second, showing the fall in the cost of installing solar panels for electricity generation, is from a report (http://cleantechnica.com/2015/08/13/us-solar-pv-cost-fell-50-5-years-government-report/) by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories.


These are the two pieces to the global energy revolution. Solar power, after decades of being much too expensive to replace conventional electricity sources, has fallen exponentially in cost. That will allow countries to build solar farms instead of new coal- and gas-burning power plants. At first, the change will come in sunny locales, and in poor countries where energy is expensive. Eventually, though, almost every country will start building solar on a mass scale. The shift is already happening.


Batteries are the other piece of the renewables puzzle. They solve two huge problems -- transportation, and electricity generation intermittency. You can’t really power cars with solar panels, so to replace oil as a fuel for ships and cars, solar will need some energy-dense storage medium like batteries. Also, solar panels can’t generate electricity at night, so batteries help solve this problem.


Importantly, both of these technologies are experiencing relatively steady cost reductions. That implies that progress is due not to huge new breakthrough technologies, but to learning curves. The more solar and batteries we build, the better we get at building them. That means that we don’t have to hope and pray for big breakthroughs -- we just have to wait for the costs to fall enough.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-12-28/four-charts-show-how-the-world-is-getting-better

[Winehole23]

Perhaps the biggest surprise last year came from smaller countries that often don't register on charts like the one above. For the first time (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-23/leapfrogging-to-solar-emerging-markets-outspend-rich-countries-for-the-first-time), more than half of the world's annual investment in clean energy came from emerging markets.

Even more telling is that the world has reached a turning point, and is now adding more power (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-14/fossil-fuels-just-lost-the-race-against-renewables) capacity from renewables every year than from coal, natural gas, and oil combined. That trend continued in 2015 despite crashing fossil fuel prices.


And since clean energy is also getting cheaper, the world got more bang for each buck. Investment dollars rose 4 percent last year, while the new capacity added for wind and solar jumped 30 percent.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-14/solar-and-wind-just-did-the-unthinkable

[Winehole23]

The U.S. solar installation sector employs 77% more people than the domestic coal mining industry.

Since 2014, solar installation has created more jobs than oil and gas pipeline construction and crude petroleum and natural

gas extraction combined.

http://www.thesolarfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/TSF-2015-National-Solar-Jobs-Census.pdf

[RandomGuy]

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-12-28/four-charts-show-how-the-world-is-getting-better

Pretty much.

The big advantage of renewables for developing countries, is that you don't really have to have a fuel distribution chain to support power plants. PV and wind don't even require water to operate.

[CosmicCowboy]

Same reason a lot of third world countries have better cell systems than we do...they never had to compete with existing hard wire systems and the phones they were selling were peoples first phone.

[boutons_deux]

Same reason a lot of third world countries have better cell systems than we do...they never had to compete with existing hard wire systems and the phones they were selling were peoples first phone.

US cell phone companies bet on lock-em-up/capture proprietary protocols, aka "free market bullshit" while the govts around the world agreed GSM make sense.

US high-speed internet sucks, slow and $$$, because BigNetworkCorp refuses to invest, being a monopoly or at best a non-compete duopoly, in all the major regions.

[Wild Cobra]

US high-speed internet sucks, slow and $$$, because BigNetworkCorp refuses to invest, being a monopoly or at best a non-compete duopoly, in all the major regions.

Maybe you can design us a system that overcomes the differences in population density, line lengths, and bandwidth.

[boutons_deux]

Maybe you can design us a system that overcomes the differences in population density, line lengths, and bandwidth.

even in big cities, fiber is rare and very expensive.

[Wild Cobra]

even in big cities, fiber is rare and very expensive.

Based on population density, it's 10 times more material and labor in the USA vs. Japan.

Will you ever stop talking out your ass?

[TDMVPDPOY]

the sooner the west move to renewable energy instead of relying on goatfuckers for energy, who then use that money to buy govt assets to own our asses....

[CosmicCowboy]

the sooner the west move to renewable energy instead of relying on goatfuckers for energy, who then use that money to buy govt assets to own our asses....

Is English a second language for you?

[TDMVPDPOY]

Is English a second language for you?

was posting in a rush...what i meant to say is, west continue to buy goatfuckers shit, who then spends that money diversifying their investments into govt privatized assets to own our asses when their oil runs out...

dont u hate it when govt stops funding or investing into renewable energy to stop the emergence of a new industry that creates jobs and shit, they shut that shit down to protect govt pension plans who are heavily invested into energy companies nothing to see here.... and then they go re-open that industry talking out of their asses they just created x amount of jobs.....

[Wild Cobra]

dont u hate it when govt stops funding or investing into renewable energy


Why should the government be finding it at all?

Apparently you think our Uncle Sam is required to take care of us cradle to grave. I think such entitlement mentality is appalling, and anti-USA.

[boutons_deux]

Winds of Change


Scare-mongering claims about Texas' electric grid capacity haven't yet played out, despite record-setting winds.


Last month as Texans were enjoying warm, spring-like weather, the statesmashed wind energy records (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/texas-sets-new-all-time-wind-energy-record/). Over the course of a day, a strong southerly flow of wind swept across West Texas, sending turbines into a spinning frenzy. For about 20 hours, wind energy produced more than a third of the electricity for most of Texas.

At its peak, it was providing 45 percent.

Yet, the electric grid held up, contrary to some scaremongering claims.

In the last two years, conservative activists and politicians have claimed that the Clean Power Plan — the Obama administration’s new carbon regulations — might cause problems with the electric grid that “could quickly escalate into a regional blackout.”

Ted Cruz, for example, called the policy (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/08/clean-power-plan-rubio-bush-cruz-huckabee) a “lawless and radical attempt to destabilize the nation’s energy system.”

In Texas, those trends have led to the shutdown of coal plants and the construction of new natural gas, wind and solar facilities. The electric grid has so far weathered the changes remarkably well. The February wind record (http://www.utilitydive.com/news/ercot-sets-another-wind-record-with-over-14-gw-serving-45-of-system-load/414315/), however, goes one step further in challenging the sky-is-falling rhetoric from those opposed to the Clean Power Plan. It demonstrates that

the grid is not only capable of absorbing a lot of wind energy, but that it can do so for sustained periods of time.

http://www.texasobserver.org/wind-energy-records/


That's now to say the Texas grid doesn't need investments and improvements, but only to say, at least, that Kray Lying Motherfucker Kruz is a shitbag.

[Wild Cobra]

Winds of Change


Scare-mongering claims about Texas' electric grid capacity haven't yet played out, despite record-setting winds.


Last month as Texans were enjoying warm, spring-like weather, the statesmashed wind energy records (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/texas-sets-new-all-time-wind-energy-record/). Over the course of a day, a strong southerly flow of wind swept across West Texas, sending turbines into a spinning frenzy. For about 20 hours, wind energy produced more than a third of the electricity for most of Texas.

At its peak, it was providing 45 percent.

Yet, the electric grid held up, contrary to some scaremongering claims.

In the last two years, conservative activists and politicians have claimed that the Clean Power Plan — the Obama administration’s new carbon regulations — might cause problems with the electric grid that “could quickly escalate into a regional blackout.”

Ted Cruz, for example, called the policy (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/08/clean-power-plan-rubio-bush-cruz-huckabee) a “lawless and radical attempt to destabilize the nation’s energy system.”

In Texas, those trends have led to the shutdown of coal plants and the construction of new natural gas, wind and solar facilities. The electric grid has so far weathered the changes remarkably well. The February wind record (http://www.utilitydive.com/news/ercot-sets-another-wind-record-with-over-14-gw-serving-45-of-system-load/414315/), however, goes one step further in challenging the sky-is-falling rhetoric from those opposed to the Clean Power Plan. It demonstrates that

the grid is not only capable of absorbing a lot of wind energy, but that it can do so for sustained periods of time.

http://www.texasobserver.org/wind-energy-records/


That's now to say the Texas grid doesn't need investments and improvements, but only to say, at least, that Kray Lying Motherfucker Kruz is a shitbag.




Sure, when the primary power is fossil fuel, and it has a quick ramp-up from idle.

Wind is a poor solution for the Northwest where hydro power cannot be so easily throttled. We have plenty of wind here, but no where to ship the electricity to with the current infrastructure. The hydro power is plenty and with wind also, the reservoirs overflow since there is no place to send the extra power. Now BPA (Bonneville Power Administration) is upgrading it's direct HVDC system to Los Angeles so they can send more electricity there, but until then, new wind projects are on hold.

[RandomGuy]

Sure, when the primary power is fossil fuel, and it has a quick ramp-up from idle.

Wind is a poor solution for the Northwest where hydro power cannot be so easily throttled. We have plenty of wind here, but no where to ship the electricity to with the current infrastructure. The hydro power is plenty and with wind also, the reservoirs overflow since there is no place to send the extra power. Now BPA (Bonneville Power Administration) is upgrading it's direct HVDC system to Los Angeles so they can send more electricity there, but until then, new wind projects are on hold.

I think we are now finding that a lot of the arguments put forth by "conservatives" on renewables are really just vacuous bullshit made up by people who, unsurprisingly, are paid to make up shit by fossil fuel companies.

Cruz, for all his "free-market" cred has been offering just those kinds of arguments.

[RandomGuy]

Why should the government be finding it at all?

Apparently you think our Uncle Sam is required to take care of us cradle to grave. I think such entitlement mentality is appalling, and anti-USA.

Because that is the government's job, i.e. to do investing for the greater good.

The problem is that you have entrenched interests fighting to retain their market share, despite the fact that the economy would be provably better off in the long run for everybody else.

When that happens, nursing new advantageous technologies and sectors into life doesn't happen. The average person who would be a little bit better off for having cheap renewables, isn't going to be funding huge lobbying efforts.

Governments can and should, provide incubators for companies and sectors. Let them develop a bit, take the training wheels off, and then let the free-market make the ultimate call.

We all have a common interest in that, and governments are supposed to advance that.

That is why.

[Wild Cobra]

I think we are now finding that a lot of the arguments put forth by "conservatives" on renewables are really just vacuous bullshit made up by people who, unsurprisingly, are paid to make up shit by fossil fuel companies.

Cruz, for all his "free-market" cred has been offering just those kinds of arguments.

No, the arguments by conservatives are based on reality, of not wanting more tax dollars needed to support someone's pet agenda.

Let a technology stand on it's own merits, without subsidies.

[Wild Cobra]

Governments can and should, provide incubators for companies and sectors. Let them develop a bit, take the training wheels off, and then let the free-market make the ultimate call.

That can be done with tax breaks. Just don't use subsidies. If tax breaks aren't enough, then the technology isn't ready.

[Winehole23]

not ready for prime time:


Portugal kept its lights on with renewable energy alone for four consecutive days last week in a clean energy milestone revealed by data analysis of national energy network figures (http://zero.ong/consumo-de-eletricidade-em-portugal-foi-assegurado-durante-mais-de-4-dias-seguidos-por-fontes-renovaveis/).


Electricity consumption in the country was fully covered by solar, wind and hydro power in an extraordinary 107-hour run that lasted from 6.45am on Saturday 7 May until 5.45pm the following Wednesday, the analysis says.


News of the zero emissions landmark comes just days after Germany announced that clean energy had powered almost all its electricity needs (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-16/germany-just-got-almost-all-of-its-power-from-renewable-energy) on Sunday 15 May, with power prices turning negative at several times in the day – effectively paying consumers to use it.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/18/portugal-runs-for-four-days-straight-on-renewable-energy-alone

[boutons_deux]

U.S. Chamber of Commerce joins anti-solar crusade

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the latest conservative group to start spreading anti-solar messages. In an email sent to supporters on Wednesday, the chamber attacks net metering (https://grist.org/climate-energy/utilities-vs-rooftop-solar-what-the-fight-is-about/), a policy in place in many states that pays people with solar panels on their roofs for the electricity they feed into the grid. The group also posted a video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nThXBaI4ouk&feature=youtu.be&utm_medium=Email&utm_source=ExactTarget&utm_campaign=&utm_content=) on YouTube last week making its anti–net metering case. This is fairly new territory for the chamber, according to energy regulation experts.

In its email, the group warns: “While your neighbor is receiving a credit (in the form of a reduced electricity bill) for putting excess energy back on the electricity grid, these outdated net metering policies overlook the costs to use, maintain, and update the grid. So, who is actually paying those costs? You — and everyone else!”

There is actually some truth to this. But the problem with the chamber’s analysis is that it ignores the positive effects of rooftop solar — most importantly, that it reduces the need for dirty, fossil fuel–based energy that causes air pollution and worsens climate change.

Here’s a more fair way to paint the situation: Electric utilities are using outdated technologies that poison our air and destabilize our climate. Who is actually paying for those costs? You — and everyone else!

We reported (https://grist.org/climate-energy/why-is-this-liberal-congresswoman-spreading-anti-solar-arguments/) on Tuesday about the utilities’ trade association, the Edison Electric Institute, feigning concern for consumers who could be ripped off by unscrupulous solar companies.

The Chamber of Commerce’s new campaign takes a different approach by heaping blame on solar consumers. But it’s all part of the same big effort by conservative groups and dirty energy companies to kneecap the solar industry, any way they can.

http://grist.org/climate-energy/u-s-chamber-of-commerce-joins-anti-solar-crusade/

There all whores paid by BigCarbon

[Winehole23]

The amount of electricity generated using solar panels stands to expand as much as sixfold by 2030 as the cost of production falls below competing natural gas and coal-fired plants, according to the International Renewable Energy Agency.

Solar plants using photovoltaic technology could account for 8 percent to 13 percent of global electricity produced in 2030, compared with 1.2 percent at the end of last year, the Abu Dhabi-based industry group said in a report Wednesday. The average cost of electricity from a photovoltaic system is forecast to plunge as much as 59 percent by 2025, making solar the cheapest form of power generation “in an increasing number of cases,” it said.


Renewables are replacing nuclear energy and curbing electricity production from gas and coal in developed areas such as Europe and the U.S., according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. California’s PG&E Corp. (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-21/pg-e-proposing-to-retire-california-s-only-nuclear-reactors) is proposing to close two nuclear reactors as wind and solar costs decline. Even as supply gluts depress coal and gas prices, solar and wind technologies will be the cheapest ways to produce electricity in most parts of the world in the 2030s, New Energy Finance said in a report (http://about.bnef.com/press-releases/coal-and-gas-to-stay-cheap-but-renewables-still-win-race-on-costs/)this month.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-22/solar-power-to-grow-sixfold-as-sun-becoming-cheapest-resource

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

No, the arguments by conservatives are based on reality, of not wanting more tax dollars needed to support someone's pet agenda.

Let a technology stand on it's own merits, without subsidies.

:lmao

Fossil fuels are subsidised 6:1 over renewables. Fossil fuels pay nothing for the destructive externalities they impose on others and the environment. And fossil fuels have the massive advantage of market encumbency with amortised assets. Guess what - fossil fuels were subsidised heavily in the nascent stages. Your argument holds not one drop of water.

And even with all that, wind today is roughly the same installation cost as gas, and PPAs are being signed for solar farms at 4c/kWh, cheaper than anything.

Renewables are the future of the global economy. Anyone who can't see that is a fucking idiot.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

PS I'm not rejoining the political forum. I actually just came to see if any of you were going to vote for Trump. I'm not surprised that some of you are, but it does surprise me that you would be comfortable with handing over command of your military to him. I can tell you that most of the rest of the world is very uncomfortable with that idea.

Also, a strange thank you to boutons, Cowboy, and Cobra (in no particular order): debating you on topics like climate change and renewable energy back in the early 2000s forced me to properly research these subject (and many more). I eventually went back to school to study human ecology and found my true calling as a sustainability educator and consultant. We probably still disagree on most things, but you helped me to define the realities. I've gone on to educate thousands of people at tech and university about sustainability, and done thousands of home and small business energy audits to boot. You played a small but significant part in making that happen - thanks again.

Oh, and check your heads. ;) :lol

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao

Fossil fuels are subsidised 6:1 over renewables.


You need to stop talking out your ass. A complete lie.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You need to stop talking out your ass. A complete lie.


According to the report -- compiled by Oil Change International and U.K.-based think tank Overseas Development Institute -- national subsidies to oil, gas and coal producers amount to $20.5 billion annually in the U.S., with almost all of those being received in the form of tax or royalty breaks. Federal subsidies amount to $17.2 billion annually, while subsidies in a number of oil-, gas- and coal-producing states average $3.3 billion annually.

http://www.ibtimes.com/us-fossil-fuel-subsidies-increase-dramatically-despite-climate-change-pledge-2180918


Fossil fuels are reaping $550 billion a year in subsidies and holding back investment in cleaner forms of energy, the International Energy Agency said.
Oil, coal and gas received more than four times the $120 billion paid out in incentives for renewables including wind, solar and biofuels, the Paris-based institution said today in its annual World Energy Outlook.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-11-12/fossil-fuels-with-550-billion-in-subsidy-hurt-renewables

WC once again wishcasting for his oilco overlords.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Thanks Fuzzy. There are also reports from the IEA on this topic. Fossil fuels are massively subsidised. Cobra talking out arse due to cognitive dissonance as usual. Bye bye.

[boutons_deux]

US Wind Energy Prices At “Rock-Bottom Levels,” Says Berkeley Lab

Wind energy prices in the United States “are at rock-bottom levels” and continue to remain attractive to utility and commercial purchasers, according to a new US-centric wind energy report.

Prime among these conclusions is confirmation that wind prices are at an all time low, with

newly built wind projects in the US averaging around 2¢/kWh

thanks to technology advancements and cost reductions across the wind industry.

What’s interesting is the role that bigger turbines are having on wind project performance, with the average capacity of wind turbines installed in the US growing 180% to 2.0 MW, and an average hub height increasing by 47%.

Technology advancements as a whole have increased the industry’s overall performance, as structures become taller and more economically efficient, blades become more efficient, and the mechanics of a turbine similarly increase project performance. Increased rotor diameters are a particular technological improvement which is having a dramatic impact on wind project capacity.
All this technological advancement has been paralleled by increases in the manufacturing process of the self-same technologies, which has helped drop wind turbine pricing by 20% to 40%. Wind projects built in 2015 had an average installed cost of $1,690/kilowatt(kW), down $640/kW from the temporary peak in 2009 and 2010.

http://cleantechnica.com/2016/08/18/us-wind-energy-prices-rock-bottom-levels-berkeley-lab/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29

While the USA is essentially empty (compared to Europe with its much greater offshore wind production) and available for wind turbines, there is still the huge, shallow continental shelf off the Gulf and Atlantic coasts.

[CosmicCowboy]

US Wind Energy Prices At “Rock-Bottom Levels,” Says Berkeley Lab

Wind energy prices in the United States “are at rock-bottom levels” and continue to remain attractive to utility and commercial purchasers, according to a new US-centric wind energy report.

Prime among these conclusions is confirmation that wind prices are at an all time low, with

newly built wind projects in the US averaging around 2¢/kWh

thanks to technology advancements and cost reductions across the wind industry.

What’s interesting is the role that bigger turbines are having on wind project performance, with the average capacity of wind turbines installed in the US growing 180% to 2.0 MW, and an average hub height increasing by 47%.

Technology advancements as a whole have increased the industry’s overall performance, as structures become taller and more economically efficient, blades become more efficient, and the mechanics of a turbine similarly increase project performance. Increased rotor diameters are a particular technological improvement which is having a dramatic impact on wind project capacity.
All this technological advancement has been paralleled by increases in the manufacturing process of the self-same technologies, which has helped drop wind turbine pricing by 20% to 40%. Wind projects built in 2015 had an average installed cost of $1,690/kilowatt(kW), down $640/kW from the temporary peak in 2009 and 2010.

http://cleantechnica.com/2016/08/18/us-wind-energy-prices-rock-bottom-levels-berkeley-lab/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29

While the USA is essentially empty (compared to Europe with its much greater offshore wind production) and available for wind turbines, there is still the huge, shallow continental shelf off the Gulf and Atlantic coasts.




You need to get out more Boo. Texas has thousands of them.

[RandomGuy]

arguments by conservatives are based on reality

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

[boutons_deux]

You need to get out more Boo. Texas has thousands of them.

You need to GFY and your straw men.

[RandomGuy]

:lmao

Fossil fuels are subsidised 6:1 over renewables. Fossil fuels pay nothing for the destructive externalities they impose on others and the environment. And fossil fuels have the massive advantage of market encumbency with amortised assets. Guess what - fossil fuels were subsidised heavily in the nascent stages. Your argument holds not one drop of water.

And even with all that, wind today is roughly the same installation cost as gas, and PPAs are being signed for solar farms at 4c/kWh, cheaper than anything.

Renewables are the future of the global economy. Anyone who can't see that is a fucking idiot.

"destructive externalities" is a phrase you will have to explain to Wild Cobra.

That is part of reality that conservatives who have bought into the paid-for propaganda from conservative think-tanks would rather ignore. I have yet to see any pragmatic response that adequately addresses the dirty parts of fossil fuel extraction. Most of it amounts to "la-la-la-la-la I can't hear you".

When you start showing pictures of the ecological disasters caused by the usage of fossil fuels and saying "why is this not completely cleaned up?"

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2008/12/24/us/25sludge2_600.JPG

NC coal ash spill clean up continues 2 years later
http://wncn.com/2016/02/02/nc-coal-ash-spill-clean-up-continues-2-years-later/

This is just one of the impacts that nasty coal has. It is not as cheap as the idiots on the right think it is, not by far. But hey, I know I am preaching to the choir here, sorry.

[boutons_deux]

Will BigOil pay any of their AGW "external costs" of the current flood disaster in their home/vassal state Louisiana? Hell no.

the BigCoal companies are in deep trouble, not from the Feds' CPP, a LIE told by Repugs, but from the boom in, conversion to natural gas, and renewables. I expect their coal ash dumps will be treated like SuperFund sites paid by taxpayers.
Instead Of Cleaning Up Coal Ash Sites, North Carolina Legislators Want To ‘Bail Out’ Duke Energy
https://thinkprogress.org/instead-of-cleaning-up-coal-ash-sites-north-carolina-legislators-want-to-bail-out-duke-energy-30a04ec02a0b#.z1lezjmhh

"bail out" with whose $100Ms? :lol

[boutons_deux]

Republican State AGs Met With Coal, Electricity Companies Before Filing Against The EPA’s Carbon Rule

Private meetings with the attorneys general cost up to $125,000.

Of the 21 attorneys general who attended the summit, only one — Idaho’s Lawrence Wasden — did not join an anti-Clean Power Plan lawsuit that was launched that same month and is expected to be heard at a U.S. District Court later this month.

“State attorneys general are supposed to enforce the law and serve the public interest,

but instead these Republican officials have hung a ‘For Sale’ sign on their door,

and the fossil fuel industry proved to be the highest bidder,”

Nick Surgey, research director for the watchdog group, said in a statement.

The Clean Power Plan is a regulation under the Clean Air Act that requires states to find a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector.

Electricity generation is a leading source of pollution, and curbing emissions from the sector is critical for future climate and environmental stability — helping to meet the United States’ obligations under the Paris climate agreement and to avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change. In addition, the Clean Power Plan is expected to improve local air quality and improve health (https://thinkprogress.org/harvard-study-finds-38-billion-economic-benefit-from-epas-carbon-rule-5448fc324979#.evbprbpzc) across the nation.

Fighting it has been a priority for fossil fuel companies, particularly coal [/COLOR]

https://thinkprogress.org/republican-ags-coal-companies-epas-carbon-rule-de76ac047edf#.cvp0apw5a

And you Repug assholes accuse Hillary and her Foundation as "pay to play"? :lol

[ducks]

I USE SOLAR!

[boutons_deux]

Trump brings Koch network's anti-green-energy stance from the fringe to the center of power

When an obscure nonprofit group attacked one of California’s signature green-energy projects this summer — warning a congressional panel that the

embrace of solar energy would lead to crippling hikes in electricity bills —

officials in the state shrugged off the testimony as noise from the fringe.

With Donald Trump (http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-na-all-things-trump)’s election, however, that group, the Institute for Energy Research, has moved suddenly from the fringe to the center of power.

The president-elect has sent the group’s president, a former Koch Industries lobbyist named Thomas Pyle, to the Energy Department to take charge of its transition.

For years, Pyle has led a coordinated national assault on renewable power. His groups and others that belong to the sprawling network bankrolled by Charles and David Koch (http://www.latimes.com/topic/business/david-koch-PEBSL00422-topic.html), whose vast fortune stems originally from oil refining, pressure lawmakers to roll back policies that promote green power. The Koch network gave Pyle’s groups $3 million in 2015.

Now, in his role with the Trump transition, Pyle’s vision will shape the new direction of a federal agency that has been a crucial partner to California and like-minded states in their embrace of solar, wind and geothermal power.

Days before he was appointed to the role, Pyle, who did not respond to interview requests, tweeted that he expected the new administration would go beyond a mere rollback of President Obama’s climate-change actions and

bring about “a reset of a generation of failed energy and environmental policies.”

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-kochs-climate-20161205-story.html

Repugs/VRWC/BigCarbon/KockBros gonna FUCK UP everything they can.

[Winehole23]

A transformation is happening in global energy markets that’s worth noting as 2016 comes to an end: Solar power, for the first time, is becoming the cheapest form of new electricity.


This has happened in isolated projects in the past: an especially competitive auction in the Middle East, for example, resulting in record-cheap solar costs. But now unsubsidized solar is beginning to outcompete coal and natural gas on a larger scale, and notably, new solar projects in emerging markets are costing less to build than wind projects, according to fresh data from Bloomberg New Energy Finance (http://global-climatescope.org/en/). https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-15/world-energy-hits-a-turning-point-solar-that-s-cheaper-than-wind

[Wild Cobra]

I USE SOLAR!

I uses solar also, but my usage is insignificant. I have an outdoors shed that I keep a car battery charges with, and RV bulbs inside.

How extensive is yours? Off the grid yet?

[boutons_deux]

I expect repugs will kill all Fed support for renewable energy, killing 100Ks of jobs.

Most red/slave states do nothing to promote renewable energy, if not actually block it.

[RandomGuy]

I USE SOLAR!


Good for you. I genuinely hope it pays you handsomely.

[RandomGuy]

The University of Minnesota’s Energy Transition Lab published a report Tuesday at the end of a workshop with various stakeholders in Minnesota’s power sector. The report found that battery storage plants would be more cost effective than a comparative gas-fired “peaking” plant at meeting the state’s power capacity needs after 2022. While that might seem like a confusing or minor distinction, it’s a benchmark for a larger trend — battery storage is quickly approaching the point where it’s actually cheaper than building more natural gas power plants.

FWIW.

https://www.inverse.com/article/34161-renewable-grid-batteries-minnesota-report-cheaper-natural-gas

[boutons_deux]

flow batteries are more promising in almost every aspect for grid level storage than solid batteries

https://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2017/02/long-lasting-flow-battery-could-run-for-more-than-decade-with-minimum-upkeep

Of course, BigElectric/ALEC/Kock Bros are spending $100Ms to block energy storage, esp distributed solar + storage that would allow clients to disconnect completely from BigElectric.

btw, CA, of course, has so much renewable energy its has to pay others to offload from CA.

California invested heavily in solar power. Now there's so much that other states are sometimes paid to take it

http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-electricity-solar/

[TeyshaBlue]

btw, CA, of course, couldn't be bothered to put together the transmission infrastructure to handle the increase. Too busy building out solar to actually anticipate the increase. Probably need to take a page or 10 from ERCOT's book and figure out how it's done correctly.

[boutons_deux]

btw, CA, of course, couldn't be bothered to put together the transmission infrastructure to handle the increase. Too busy building out solar to actually anticipate the increase. Probably need to take a page or 10 from ERCOT's book and figure out how it's done correctly.

What have TX and ERCOT done to promote distributed solar, with subsidies and transmission?

[TeyshaBlue]

They've overbuilt the shit out of the grid for starters. Not that you can be bothered to read.

A major reason for the Texas wind miracle is the degree to which Texas proactively invested in transmission line improvements to accommodate more wind power from the state’s windiest areas to the state’s population centers. This effort was focused on creating Competitive Renewable Energy Zones (CREZ) to facilitate wind power development beyond the state’s already impressive achievements in the first decade of this century.

Texas' wind resources are mostly in West Texas and the Panhandle, and most of its large cities are in East Texas. It made sense, given the growth of low-cost wind power in Texas, for ERCOT and state policymakers to invest heavily in the transmission grid to allow more low-cost wind power to reach population centers. Texas invested about $7 billion in transmission line upgrades to transport power from the largely undeveloped western part of the state to the developed eastern portions.

Interestingly, a very similar dynamic is unfolding now for solar, with the state’s solar resource far better in West Texas and the Panhandle than in the state’s more populated areas. Solar power can benefit, however, from the fact that Texas has already invested heavily in transmission line buildouts and solar power will increasingly be competing with wind power and other resources for available transmission capacity to wheel power from the sunniest areas of the state to the largest population centers.

We are already seeing most solar development in the state take place in West Texas, giving a strong clue about the pattern for future growth.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Will-Texas-Surpass-California-as-King-of-Solar

[SnakeBoy]

They've overbuilt the shit out of the grid for starters. Not that you can be bothered to read.

A major reason for the Texas wind miracle is the degree to which Texas proactively invested in transmission line improvements to accommodate more wind power from the state’s windiest areas to the state’s population centers. This effort was focused on creating Competitive Renewable Energy Zones (CREZ) to facilitate wind power development beyond the state’s already impressive achievements in the first decade of this century.

Texas' wind resources are mostly in West Texas and the Panhandle, and most of its large cities are in East Texas. It made sense, given the growth of low-cost wind power in Texas, for ERCOT and state policymakers to invest heavily in the transmission grid to allow more low-cost wind power to reach population centers. Texas invested about $7 billion in transmission line upgrades to transport power from the largely undeveloped western part of the state to the developed eastern portions.

Interestingly, a very similar dynamic is unfolding now for solar, with the state’s solar resource far better in West Texas and the Panhandle than in the state’s more populated areas. Solar power can benefit, however, from the fact that Texas has already invested heavily in transmission line buildouts and solar power will increasingly be competing with wind power and other resources for available transmission capacity to wheel power from the sunniest areas of the state to the largest population centers.

We are already seeing most solar development in the state take place in West Texas, giving a strong clue about the pattern for future growth.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Will-Texas-Surpass-California-as-King-of-Solar

Yeah but Texas is a red state so...Repugs!

[Thread]

Yeah but Texas is a red state so...Repugs!

But, the D's feel as if Texas is a possibility, that it is no longer a lock for R's. I do not know if that is hyperbole, or, legitimate, but, if true, it is, in combination with Chicago, NY. & CA., a real problem with lethal undertones.

[Wild Cobra]

flow batteries are more promising in almost every aspect for grid level storage than solid batteries

https://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2017/02/long-lasting-flow-battery-could-run-for-more-than-decade-with-minimum-upkeep

Of course, BigElectric/ALEC/Kock Bros are spending $100Ms to block energy storage, esp distributed solar + storage that would allow clients to disconnect completely from BigElectric.

btw, CA, of course, has so much renewable energy its has to pay others to offload from CA.

California invested heavily in solar power. Now there's so much that other states are sometimes paid to take it

http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-electricity-solar/




I wonder what the cost of these would be?

Sounds like a paradigm shift may have occurred.

[Quadzilla99]

But, the D's feel as if Texas is a possibility, that it is no longer a lock for R's. I do not know if that is hyperbole, or, legitimate, but, if true, it is, in combination with Chicago, NY. & CA., a real problem with lethal undertones.

Honestly you could just dump the white trash platform in the future and run a Hispanic if it comes to that I don't think Latinos are a guaranteed Dem voting block like Blacks are

[boutons_deux]

US Solar Panel Makers Win US Trade Ruling

In a unanimous vote Friday morning, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) found that the domestic solar panel industry has suffered “serious injury” as a result of “increased quantities” of imports of solar photovoltaic (PV) cells and products based on the those cells. The ruling should have been a surprise to no one.

Now the ITC moves to the remedy phase of the process. That means that the commission will meet on October 3 to discuss a remedy for what the complaint claimed was dumping of Chinese-made solar panels at the expense of two U.S.-based solar panel makers, Suniva and SolarWorld, both of which filed for bankruptcy.

The complainants are seeking a floor price of $0.78 per watt on solar modules and a tariff of $0.40 per watt on imported modules. Analysts at GTM Research have said such increases would eliminate two-thirds of U.S. installations expected to come online over the next five years.

Following the October 3 hearing, the ITC must submit a final report to President Trump by November 13. If the ITC accepts the proposed pricing and tariffs — or, for that matter, any tariff — the president will have an opportunity to make good on his promises to institute tariffs to drive U.S. manufacturing jobs.

http://247wallst.com/energy-business/2017/09/22/us-solar-panel-makers-win-us-trade-ruling/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+typepad%2FRyNm+%2824%2F7+Wall +St.%29

A great opportunity for Trash hurt renewable energy AND kill a couple 100K jobs.

Let's say the US solar panel mfrs can't meet demand, so imports pay the tariffs and fill the demand.

The tariff payments go to the US govt (and then to the oligarchy as tax cuts)?

[Winehole23]

They've overbuilt the shit out of the grid for starters. Not that you can be bothered to read.

A major reason for the Texas wind miracle is the degree to which Texas proactively invested in transmission line improvements to accommodate more wind power from the state’s windiest areas to the state’s population centers. This effort was focused on creating Competitive Renewable Energy Zones (CREZ) to facilitate wind power development beyond the state’s already impressive achievements in the first decade of this century.

Texas' wind resources are mostly in West Texas and the Panhandle, and most of its large cities are in East Texas. It made sense, given the growth of low-cost wind power in Texas, for ERCOT and state policymakers to invest heavily in the transmission grid to allow more low-cost wind power to reach population centers. Texas invested about $7 billion in transmission line upgrades to transport power from the largely undeveloped western part of the state to the developed eastern portions.

Interestingly, a very similar dynamic is unfolding now for solar, with the state’s solar resource far better in West Texas and the Panhandle than in the state’s more populated areas. Solar power can benefit, however, from the fact that Texas has already invested heavily in transmission line buildouts and solar power will increasingly be competing with wind power and other resources for available transmission capacity to wheel power from the sunniest areas of the state to the largest population centers.

We are already seeing most solar development in the state take place in West Texas, giving a strong clue about the pattern for future growth.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Will-Texas-Surpass-California-as-King-of-SolarRick Perry and Donald Trump can't stop the trend, coal plants continue to close -- in Texas:


Last month, American Electric Power (AEP) announced that it would close its 650-megawatt power plant in Vernon, a rural community of 11,000 just south of the Texas-Oklahoma line, by September 2020. The closure of the Oklaunion Power Station is the latest in a string of shuttered coal-fired power plants across the state: Since 2011, at least six have been mothballed, scheduled for retirement or closed altogether, casualties of cheap natural gas and a booming renewables sector.https://www.texasobserver.org/despite-trump-and-rick-perrys-best-efforts-another-coal-plant-eats-the-dust-in-texas/

[TDMVPDPOY]

why do people always think about ROI before they decide to spend on something?

utility bills continue to increase, even if you decide to change the way you use it, they will try to find a way to slap something to make you pay for something....

hence that tesla power wall 2 battery... :(

down here they have a rebate upto 40-50% of a solar system, but dunno if that also applies to battery... just panels + invertor + installation


OPEC charges its people jackshit for oil usage, yet countries with 1000s of years worth of coal in the ground, charges its citizens rrp more then how much you refill at the pump for oil

[Winehole23]

Trump offshore drilling ban puts a stitch in wind power:


Trump’s decision to rule out energy development along the East Coast will bar not only offshore oil and gas drilling but coastal wind farm development in equal measure.


The Interior Department agency has confirmed the broad reach of Trump’s latest orders and is likely to significantly impact U.S. wind development, a sector that has lately been recording the fastest growth amidst the Covid-19 pandemic.



https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Trumps-Offshore-Oil-Ban-Will-Hit-Wind-Farms-Hard.html

[boutons_deux]

Trump offshore drilling ban puts a stitch in wind power:

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Trumps-Offshore-Oil-Ban-Will-Hit-Wind-Farms-Hard.html

this is the kind of Trash shit that Biden must fix early in 2021, block oil/gas offshore, while opening wide for wind.

Continental shelf oil/gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico that aren't producing "enough" should be cancelled and given to wind production.

[Winehole23]

https://cleantechnica.com/files/2020/10/clean-energy-ERCOT.png

https://cleantechnica.com/files/2020/10/RMI-renewables-vs-gas.png



After analyzing the most recent data from two of America’s largest electricity markets — ERCOT in Texas and PJM in the Northeast — the Rocky Mountain Institute (https://rmi.org/clean-energy-is-canceling-gas-plants/) has come to a startling conclusion. Renewables are muscling in on natural gas as the preferred choice for new electricity generation. In fact, according to RMI, what happened to coal is now happening to gas. What is needed, the organization argues, is a move away from the monopoly markets that have been the norm in the utility industry for more than 100 years and toward more open competition. Because when renewables compete head to head with thermal generation, they win hands down 95% of the time.

https://cleantechnica.com/2020/10/03/rocky-mountain-institute-study-shows-renewables-are-kicking-natural-gas-to-the-curb/


In these two regions, investors finance projects based on expected returns in the competitive market — not based on expectations of cost recovery allowed by regulators of monopoly, vertically-integrated utilities. In other words, this trend represents the shifts in internal risk and reward calculus among investors in highly competitive markets, and reflects a market-based, consensus view of the underlying economic value of different power sources.https://rmi.org/clean-energy-is-canceling-gas-plants/

[Winehole23]

And the benchmark costs of clean energy have fallen meaningfully in the past year. We have updated our analysis, using new data on renewable energy and storage costs from the US Department of Energy-sponsored 2020 Annual Technology Baseline (https://atb.nrel.gov/electricity/2020/data.php) (ATB) and an improved representation of how storage can contribute to meeting peak demand. We have found that CEPs are now even more competitive with new gas plants.


Importantly, this updated analysis shows that most proposed gas plants that do get built will face stranded cost risks within 10 years of construction. If cost and efficiency improvements for clean energy continue at closer to their historical rates (e.g., as shown in the 2020 ATB’s Advanced scenario), 90 percent of planned combined-cycle capacity will face stranded cost risk by 2026. For many gas-fired plants, this could mean that they are already stranded assets the day they enter service.
https://rmi.org/clean-energy-is-canceling-gas-plants/

[RandomGuy]

It's you who wants to base policy on unknown facts.

I didn't know the mud log data wasn't proprietary any more. When did public disclosure start on them?

Again, it's you that agree with making policy with data that is not solid.

Yes, you are.

It was projections. not proof.

Maybe we will, maybe we won't.

Where can I buy a crystal ball like yours?

Cool....

Have you done the same with my threads on global warming? love to see you eat crow on them.

Here is a post from 10 years ago that did not age well. Not expecting a response, but 10 more years.. .it is hotter with more extreme weather events. 10 years form now... it will be worse still.

[RandomGuy]

I would propose a solid carbon tax of some sort, with the funds being dumped into research on solid renewables, and tax-breaks for companies building/using efficiency and renewable energy sources.

Cap and trade of carbon emissions seems to me to be a fair solution to this problem.


Taxing carbon will drive the price of EVERYTHING up. You do know that, right?

... and we have renewables anyway, and all that development happened.

So basically, I advocated for CO2 reduction over a decade ago, to mitigate climate change, and you came back with a bullshit argument, and we have more green energy now, but probably not enough.

You.
Stupid.
Whore.

[RandomGuy]

Taxing carbon will drive the price of EVERYTHING up. You do know that, right?

Solar energy reaches historically low costs
https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/13/21514902/solar-energy-cost-historic-low-energy-agency-outlook-2020

:lol Your energy density argument.

[Winehole23]

trend looks good

https://ritholtz.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Price-of-electricity-new-renewables-vs-new-fossil.png

[Winehole23]

Maybe we don't need funds for renewable energy anymore, looks like the market is doing its thing.


The owners of Australia's newest coal-fired power station have written down the value of the asset to zero, wiping out a $1.2 billion investment in the face of an onslaught of renewable energy.

The decision was booked in Sumitomo's September accounts, in which the company acknowledged the facility was worthless despite being barely 10 years old.In what a financial market analyst said was a "classic example" of changes predicted in the energy industry, Japanese conglomerate Sumitomo has written off its $250 million equity stake in the Bluewaters power plant in Western Australia's south-west.

It comes just nine years after Sumitomo, in a joint venture with fellow Japanese firm Kansai, bought Bluewaters for a reported $1.2 billion from the wreckage of fallen coal tycoon Ric Stowe's failed business empire.
Kansai is believed to have made similar accounting changes, meaning both companies have reduced their equity stakes to zero.



Bluewaters and other coal-fired power stations in WA have been dealing with tougher trading conditions as renewable energy led by solar increasingly hollows out the market.

The Institute of Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, a think tank funded by environmental philanthropists, said Sumitomo had been left with little choice other than to write off its investment in Bluewaters.

Simon Nicholas, an energy finance analyst at IEEFA, said the decision was important in a global context because it highlighted the extraordinary changes underway in energy.
"I think this is an absolutely classic example of what we're likely to see going forward across Australia and around the world," Mr Nicholas said.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-17/bluewaters-coal-fired-power-station-written-off-books/12990532

[Winehole23]

OP was 06-14-2010

[Winehole23]

I'm sure all the board lefties will love paying 5-6 bucks for a gallon of gas. Oh, and paying more for all other goods shipped by truck (pretty much everything).good call

[Winehole23]

Any time the federal government taxes one entity to support another they end up fucking it up. Corn Ethanol is a perfect example. Congress just sells out to the highest bidder.aged like fine cream

[Winehole23]

The decreasing cost of renewables unlikely to plateau anytime soon (https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/10/the-decreasing-cost-of-renewables-unlikely-to-plateau-anytime-soon/)Early price forecasts underestimated how good we’d get at making green energy

[Winehole23]

lesson: cheap cynicism can be costly

[Winehole23]

Additions of renewable power capacity are on track to set yet another annual record in 2021, driven by solar PV. Almost 290 gigawatts (GW) of new renewable power will be commissioned this year, which is 3% higher than 2020’s already exceptional growth. Solar PV alone accounts for more than half of all renewable power expansion in 2021, followed by wind and hydropower.

The growth of renewable capacity is forecast to accelerate in the next five years, accounting for almost 95% of the increase in global power capacity through 2026. We have revised up our forecast from a year earlier, as stronger policy support and ambitious climate targets announced for COP26 outweigh the current record commodity prices that have increased the costs of building new wind and solar PV installations. Globally, renewable electricity capacity is forecast to increase by over 60% between 2020 and 2026, reaching more than 4 800 GW. This is equivalent to the current global power capacity of fossil fuels and nuclear combined. Overall, China remains the leader over the next five years, accounting for 43% of global renewable capacity growth, followed by Europe, the United States and India. These four markets alone account for 80% of renewable capacity expansion worldwide.https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2021/executive-summary

[Winehole23]

Fossil fuels are heavily subsidized and politically protected, hence the language about pursuing a subnational strategy for renewable heating sources.


Since the start of 2020, heat from renewable sources has benefited directly or indirectly from several policy developments, mostly in Europe. Under current policies, renewable heat consumption, excluding traditional uses of biomass, is expected to increase by one-quarter during the 2021-26 period. Its share of global heat consumption is only forecast to rise from 11% in 2020 to 13% in 2026. Fossil fuels are set to continue meeting much of the growing global demand for heat, leading to a 5% increase in heat-related CO2 emissions over our forecast period.

The lack of policy and financial incentives for renewable heat is preventing faster growth. Globally, more than one-third of heat consumption is not covered by any financial incentive for renewables, and more than half is not subject to any renewables-related regulatory measures. The fragmented nature of heat markets and local characteristics of heat demand partly explain the limited national policy coverage. This makes greater collaboration with subnational actors necessary.

[RandomGuy]

https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2021/executive-summary





Drive through the panhandle occasionally to get to visit dad. always amazed at the scope and scale of the wind farms.

[SnakeBoy]

Interesting article

Green Upheaval: The New Geopolitics of Energy
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/world/2021-11-30/geopolitics-energy-green-upheaval

[Winehole23]

Interesting article

Green Upheaval: The New Geopolitics of Energy
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/world/2021-11-30/geopolitics-energy-green-upheavalwhat did you find interesting?

[SnakeBoy]

what did you find interesting?

The article

[Winehole23]

The articleanything about it in particular?

[Ef-man]

Interesting article

Green Upheaval: The New Geopolitics of Energy
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/world/2021-11-30/geopolitics-energy-green-upheaval

Waste of time.

Better off reading ST’s privacy policy.

[RandomGuy]

Waste of time.

Better off reading ST’s privacy policy.

It was pretty good. Sort of a summary of all the things happening and that will likely happen as we move into a more renewable world.

[CosmicCowboy]

Drive through the panhandle occasionally to get to visit dad. always amazed at the scope and scale of the wind farms.

Yeah, that Sweetwater/Lubbock area is crazy.

[RandomGuy]

Yeah, that Sweetwater/Lubbock area is crazy.

The ranchers up there have got to love the rent payments. with no risk of spills or something messing up the grazing land, really a huge win for them.

Thinking of snapping up land in windy places...

[Th'Pusher]

The ranchers up there have got to love the rent payments. with no risk of spills or something messing up the grazing land, really a huge win for them.

Thinking of snapping up land in windy places...

But what about all the dead birds?

[boutons_deux]

Biden is leasing more land and sea for BigOil than Trash did.