Let's connect some dots...

[Yonivore]

1) "Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before." - Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

2) BP becomes a founding member of the Cap and Trade Lobby (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Once-a-government-pet-BP-now-a-capitalist-tool-95942659.html)

3) Obama administration approves the Horizon deep water well (http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/46831).

4) Somebody on the Horizon deep-water well screws up; 11 people are killed and oil commences spewing into the Gulf at a pretty good clip...estimates range from 5,000 to 1,000,000 gallons per day (who really knows).

5) The Obama administration and BP have spent the ensuing two months refusing offers of assistance and generally bumbling the operation thus creating the worst oil spill in American history with no end in sight.

6) President Obama will take to the airwaves tonight and start pushing for cap and trade.

Discuss.

[ElNono]

7) Call Kevin Costner

[EmptyMan]

http://www.gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs/240304_o.gif

[Yonivore]

Well, the hounds didn't like the speech...

MSNBC Trashes Obama's Address: Compared To Carter, "I Don't Sense Executive Command" (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/06/15/msnbc_trashes_obamas_address_compared_to_carter_i_ dont_sense_executive_command.html)

Matthews' tingle has turned out to be gangrene...

[Yonivore]

Fallout from the Spill (http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/06/fallout-from-spill.html)


Our new Louisiana poll has a lot of data points to show how unhappy voters in the state are with Barack Obama's handling of the oil spill but one perhaps sums it up better than anything else- a majority of voters there think George W. Bush did a better job with Katrina than Obama's done dealing with the spill.

[Yonivore]

FACT CHECK: Obama inflates hopes in spill recovery (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100616/ap_on_bi_ge/us_oil_spill_obama_fact_check)


WASHINGTON – In assuring Americans on Tuesday that BP won't control the compensation fund for Gulf oil spill recovery, President Barack Obama failed to mention that the government won't control it, either.

That means it's anyone's guess whether the government can, in fact, make BP pay all costs related to the spill.

Obama aimed high in his prime-time Oval Office address — perhaps higher than the facts support and history teaches — as he vowed to restore livelihoods and nature from the still-unfolding calamity in the Gulf of Mexico.

A look at some of his statements and how they compare with those facts:

OBAMA: "We will make BP pay for the damage their company has caused and we will do whatever's necessary to help the Gulf Coast and its people recover from this tragedy. ... Tomorrow, I will meet with the chairman of BP and inform him that he is to set aside whatever resources are required to compensate the workers and business owners who have been harmed as a result of his company's recklessness. And this fund will not be controlled by BP. In order to ensure that all legitimate claims are paid out in a fair and timely manner, the account must and will be administered by an independent, third party."

THE FACTS: An independent arbiter is no more bound to the government's wishes than an oil company's. In that sense, there is no certainty BP will be forced to make the Gulf economy whole again or that taxpayers are completely off the hook for any of the myriad costs associated with the spill or cleanup. The government can certainly press for that, using legislative and legal tools. But there are no guarantees.

It took 20 years to sort through liability after the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska, and in the end, punitive damages were slashed by the courts to about $500 million from $2.5 billion. Many people who had lost their livelihoods in the spill died without seeing a check.

OBAMA: "Already, I have issued a six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling. I know this creates difficulty for the people who work on these rigs, but for the sake of their safety and for the sake of the entire region, we need to know the facts before we allow deepwater drilling to continue."

THE FACTS: Obama issued a six-month moratorium on new permits for deepwater drilling but production continues from existing deepwater wells.

OBAMA: "In the coming days and weeks, these efforts should capture up to 90 percent of the oil leaking out of the well."

THE FACTS: BP and the administration contend that if all goes as planned, they should be able to contain nearly 90 percent of the worst-case oil flow. But that's a big "if." So far, little has gone as planned in the various remedies attempted to shut off or contain the flow. Possibly as many as 60,000 barrels a day are escaping. BP would need to nearly triple its recovery rate to reach the target.
Ouch! That's going to leave a mark.

[word]

The simple fact is, if you do the math, using the BTU's we get out of oil and gas, there is nothing that can come close to replacing that without using the N word. Nuclear.

[George Gervin's Afro]

FACT CHECK: Obama inflates hopes in spill recovery



Originally Posted by CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Writer Calvin Woodward, Associated Press Writer – 21 mins ago

WASHINGTON – In assuring Americans on Tuesday that BP won't control the compensation fund for Gulf oil spill recovery, President Barack Obama failed to mention that the government won't control it, either.

That means it's anyone's guess whether the government can, in fact, make BP pay all costs related to the spill.

Obama aimed high in his prime-time Oval Office address — perhaps higher than the facts support and history teaches — as he vowed to restore livelihoods and nature from the still-unfolding calamity in the Gulf of Mexico.

A look at some of his statements and how they compare with those facts:

OBAMA: "We will make BP pay for the damage their company has caused and we will do whatever's necessary to help the Gulf Coast and its people recover from this tragedy. ... Tomorrow, I will meet with the chairman of BP and inform him that he is to set aside whatever resources are required to compensate the workers and business owners who have been harmed as a result of his company's recklessness. And this fund will not be controlled by BP. In order to ensure that all legitimate claims are paid out in a fair and timely manner, the account must and will be administered by an independent, third party."

THE FACTS: An independent arbiter is no more bound to the government's wishes than an oil company's. In that sense, there is no certainty BP will be forced to make the Gulf economy whole again or that taxpayers are completely off the hook for any of the myriad costs associated with the spill or cleanup. The government can certainly press for that, using legislative and legal tools. But there are no guarantees.

It took 20 years to sort through liability after the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska, and in the end, punitive damages were slashed by the courts to about $500 million from $2.5 billion. Many people who had lost their livelihoods in the spill died without seeing a check.

OBAMA: "Already, I have issued a six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling. I know this creates difficulty for the people who work on these rigs, but for the sake of their safety and for the sake of the entire region, we need to know the facts before we allow deepwater drilling to continue."

THE FACTS: Obama issued a six-month moratorium on new permits for deepwater drilling but production continues from existing deepwater wells.

OBAMA: "In the coming days and weeks, these efforts should capture up to 90 percent of the oil leaking out of the well."

THE FACTS: BP and the administration contend that if all goes as planned, they should be able to contain nearly 90 percent of the worst-case oil flow. But that's a big "if." So far, little has gone as planned in the various remedies attempted to shut off or contain the flow. Possibly as many as 60,000 barrels a day are escaping. BP would need to nearly triple its recovery rate to reach the target.




So you're upset because Obama is trying to raise the hopes of the country...

very classy of you..

In all seriousness, how can you fact check the inflating hope?

[Yonivore]

In all seriousness, how can you fact check the inflating hope?
Well, it appears they take statements intended to "inflate hope", made by Obama during the speech, and compare them to, you know, facts.

[SnakeBoy]

The simple fact is, if you do the math, using the BTU's we get out of oil and gas, there is nothing that can come close to replacing that without using the N word. Nuclear.

Hydrogen. Interestingly, the chinese pebble bed nuclear reactor is designed to produce hydrogen as a transportation fuel. It's gonna suck when China gets to scold us for not being as green as them.

[SnakeBoy]

We'll still be stuck listening to the liberal fantasy of wind/solar providing our energy needs.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Well, it appears they take statements intended to "inflate hope", made by Obama during the speech, and compare them to, you know, facts.

why not just let it play out before whining about it?..

[The Reckoning]

Hydrogen. Interestingly, the chinese pebble bed nuclear reactor is designed to produce hydrogen as a transportation fuel. It's gonna suck when China gets to scold us for not being as green as them.


and because its china nobody will be able to buy out the design and can it. interesting to see where that goes.

[SnakeBoy]

and because its china nobody will be able to buy out the design and can it. interesting to see where that goes.

Actually it's a modified german design that's been around for quite some time. China bought the design and added the hydrogen part. Just uses the excess energy from reactor to crack h20 and produce hydrogen at no added expense. The pebble bed design is described as walk away safe, it's self limiting so it can't overheat and it's gas cooled so no heavy water. We're so far behind it's not funny, but hey "nuclear" sounds scary.

[word]

We'll still be stuck listening to the liberal fantasy of wind/solar providing our energy needs.

Solar/wind is a fantasy. Even when they use it, the liberals pull the nimby card.

You have coal, oil, and nuke.

That's it. Get used to it.

Oh yeah, trees. We could go back to burning wood. Of course, there wouldn't be a tree standing in a few years but hey, we tried.

[ElNono]

Actually it's a modified german design that's been around for quite some time. China bought the design and added the hydrogen part. Just uses the excess energy from reactor to crack h20 and produce hydrogen at no added expense. The pebble bed design is described as walk away safe, it's self limiting so it can't overheat and it's gas cooled so no heavy water. We're so far behind it's not funny, but hey "nuclear" sounds scary.

Actually, the original German AVR design has been found to require lots of maintenance and that in turn has pretty much killed the PBMR in South Africa, the only other place where a prototype pebble reactor was being planned/tested. At this point, it's too early to say this is actually a viable tech. While China has presented an ambitious roadmap, they're really on the early stages.

As far as hydrogen production, it's probably one of the greenest ways to crack h2o but not necessarily the most efficient.

[ElNono]

And BTW, I'm all for more Nuclear power...

[Wild Cobra]

Hydrogen. Interestingly, the chinese pebble bed nuclear reactor is designed to produce hydrogen as a transportation fuel. It's gonna suck when China gets to scold us for not being as green as them.
Pebble Bed reactors have been proven safe for years now, and no thermal runaway if there are problems.

Too many people get freaked out here in the USA. We are backwards in so many ways.

[Winehole23]

Oh yeah, trees. We could go back to burning wood. Of course, there wouldn't be a tree standing in a few years but hey, we tried.Jesus. We wouldn't have very much refrigeration in that scenario, would we?

Growing up in the USA, nobody ever told me to get ready for the mass starvation/migration day. I'm kindly a little behind in my preparations, and frankly admit I lack many of the necessary skills for the reversion to a primitive accumulation style state of affairs.

[ChumpDumper]

1) "Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before." - Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

2) BP becomes a founding member of the Cap and Trade Lobby (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Once-a-government-pet-BP-now-a-capitalist-tool-95942659.html)

3) Obama administration approves the Horizon deep water well (http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/46831).

4) Somebody on the Horizon deep-water well screws up; 11 people are killed and oil commences spewing into the Gulf at a pretty good clip...estimates range from 5,000 to 1,000,000 gallons per day (who really knows).

5) The Obama administration and BP have spent the ensuing two months refusing offers of assistance and generally bumbling the operation thus creating the worst oil spill in American history with no end in sight.

6) President Obama will take to the airwaves tonight and start pushing for cap and trade.

Discuss.7) Yonivore dons tin foil hat to drown out the yelling of black men at gas stations.

[admiralsnackbar]

1) "Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before." - Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

2) BP becomes a founding member of the Cap and Trade Lobby (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Once-a-government-pet-BP-now-a-capitalist-tool-95942659.html)

3) Obama administration approves the Horizon deep water well (http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/46831).

4) Somebody on the Horizon deep-water well screws up; 11 people are killed and oil commences spewing into the Gulf at a pretty good clip...estimates range from 5,000 to 1,000,000 gallons per day (who really knows).

5) The Obama administration and BP have spent the ensuing two months refusing offers of assistance and generally bumbling the operation thus creating the worst oil spill in American history with no end in sight.

6) President Obama will take to the airwaves tonight and start pushing for cap and trade.

Discuss.

1) Project for a New American Century manifesto says: "The process of transformation [into a hegemonic military superpower/empire], even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

2) Intel is ignored by the WH regarding the likelihood of another attack on the WTC by Islamic radicals.

3) The WTC is destroyed.

4) We declare war on Afghanistan but allow Osama Bin Laden to escape capture despite US forces having him in their sights.

5) Using the prevalent national fear of another catastrophic terrorist attack, we shift our military focus to Iraq, where we intend to install a democracy, and stateside, where a department of Homeland Security is created following specs laid out in the PNAC Manifesto.

6) "Mission Accomplished!"

Discuss.

With Galileo.

[George Gervin's Afro]

1) Project for a New American Century manifesto says: "The process of transformation [into a hegemonic military superpower/empire], even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

2) Intel is ignored by the WH regarding the likelihood of another attack on the WTC by Islamic radicals.

3) The WTC is destroyed.

4) We declare war on Afghanistan but allow Osama Bin Laden to escape capture despite US forces having him in their sights.

5) Using the prevalent national fear of another catastrophic terrorist attack, we shift our military focus to Iraq, where we intend to install a democracy, and stateside, where a department of Homeland Security is created following specs laid out in the PNAC Manifesto.

6) "Mission Accomplished!"

Discuss.

With Galileo.

The Iraq war is sooooo yesterday...

[boutons_deux]

The dots for the Repug/neo-c*nt Iraq-for-oil are self-connecting and proven beyond any doubt, but Yoni refuses to admit it. He'd rather nip at the ankles of Magic Negro and pile up rat turds into little mounds of rat turds.

[RandomGuy]

Hydrogen. Interestingly, the chinese pebble bed nuclear reactor is designed to produce hydrogen as a transportation fuel. It's gonna suck when China gets to scold us for not being as green as them.

You do know they are building between one and two coal power plants per week, and have been for years.

That is locking them into those plants for the next 20-30 years.

[RandomGuy]

We'll still be stuck listening to the liberal fantasy of wind/solar providing our energy needs.

There is no doubt that some seem to think that is feasible.

It really isn't, without some major structural changes, some of which will happen, despite the conservative fantasy that we can keep the status quo forever.

[George Gervin's Afro]

FACT CHECK: Obama inflates hopes in spill recovery (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100616/ap_on_bi_ge/us_oil_spill_obama_fact_check)


Ouch! That's going to leave a mark.




Reuters – U.S. President Barack Obama (2nd R) and Vice President Joe Biden (3rd R) meet with BP executives in the … By BEN FELLER, Associated Press Writer Ben Feller, Associated Press Writer – 18 mins ago

WASHINGTON – BP will set aside $20 billion to pay the victims of the massive oil spill in the Gulf, senior administration officials said Wednesday, a move made under pressure by the White House as the company copes with causing the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history.

The independent fund will be led by lawyer Kenneth Feinberg, who oversaw payments to families of victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. In his current role, Feinberg is known as Obama's "pay czar," setting salary limits for companies getting the most aid from a $700 billion government bailout fund.

Obama was to announce the deal in a Rose Garden statement later Wednesday after wrapping up a meeting with BP executives at the White House.

The officials familiar with the details spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity before the announcement.

The still-unfolding disaster in the Gulf, as tens of thousands of gallons of oil continue to pour from the broken well daily, is jeopardizing the environment and ecosystems along with the livelihoods of tens of thousands of people across the coastal areas of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida. Those affected ranged from fishermen to restaurateurs to oil rig workers idled by Obama's temporary halt to new deep-sea oil drilling.

BP spokesman Toby Odone declined to comment on the fund.

Several big questions remain unanswered, including when BP would start processing claims and paying people out of the fund; who and what would exactly be covered under the plan; how the White House and BP came up with a figure of $20 billion; and whether other involved companies will be required to chip in.

At $20 billion, the size of the fund is the same that was recommended by congressional Democrats.

BP has taken the brunt of criticism about the oil spill because it was the operator of the Deepwater Horizon rig that sunk. It also is a majority owner of the undersea well that has been spewing oil since the explosion.

But when the day of reckoning finally comes, it may not be the only one having to pay up. That's because Swiss-based Transocean Ltd. owned a majority interest in the rig. Anadarko Petroleum, based in The Woodlands, Texas, has a 25 percent non-operating interest in the well.

Feinberg ran the unprecedented $7 billion government compensation program for the victims of the 2001 terrorist attacks. It was a job that lasted nearly three years as he decided how much compensation families of the victims should get, largely based on how much income they would have earned in a lifetime.

As pay czar, Feinberg has capped cash salaries at $500,000 this year for the vast majority of the top executives at the five major companies that received bailout funding: American International Group, GMAC Financial Services, Chrysler Financial, Chrysler and General Motors.

The selection of Feinberg was praised by Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York. "He did an amazingly good job in New York for the families of those lost on September 11 and received plaudits from all sides. I believe when Feinberg completes his mission here, the people in the Gulf will feel the same way," Schumer said in a statement.

The development came as Obama was meeting on his turf with top BP leaders to press the London-based oil giant to pay giant claims.

BP Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg, CEO Tony Hayward, and other officials walked slowly as a group from the Southwest Gate of the White House, climbing the steps leading to the West Wing.

Joining the president in the room were Vice President Joe Biden, Attorney General Eric Holder, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and the secretaries of energy, interior, commerce, homeland security and labor.

The meeting came the morning after Obama vowed to an angry nation that "we will make BP pay for the damage their company has caused."

The crisis began with a deep water well that blew out on April 20, killing 11 rig workers and triggering the spill.

Obama in his speech to the nation on Tuesday night backed creation of a fund administered by an independent trustee to pay damages and clean up costs associated with the spill.

For the president, the tough diplomacy with a few officials behind closed doors is a bookend to his attempt to reach millions at once. Using a delivery in which even the harshest words were uttered in subdued tones, Obama did not offer much in the way of new ideas or details in his speech. He mainly recapped the government's efforts, insisted once again that BP will be held to account and tried to tap the resilience of a nation in promising that "something better awaits."

Obama's forceful tone about BP's behavior shows how far matters have deteriorated. The White House once had described BP as an essential partner in plugging the crude oil spewing from the broken well beneath nearly a mile of water. Now Obama says BP has threatened to destroy a whole way of life.

An Associated Press-GfK poll released Tuesday showed 52 percent now disapprove of Obama's handling of the oil spill, up significantly from last month. Most people — 56 percent — think the government's actions in response to the disaster really haven't had any impact on the situation

whoops there went that fact checker... you are a dumbass

[SnakeBoy]

despite the conservative fantasy that we can keep the status quo forever.

What is the conservative fantasy? That we will rely on fossil fuels for decades to come, that's a fact. That nuclear and hydrogen are the only technologies in existence that can make a significant dent in our dependence on fossil fuels, that's a fact. Conservatives are for pursuing those technologies, it's liberals who are stuck dreaming of a wind/solar/geothermal/etc. economy.

Last night Obama gave the same speech on friendly renewable energy that Carter gave 31 years ago. Very little progress has been made on those technologies not because of conservatives but because they simply cannot meet our energy demands and never will be more than a supplemental energy source. It's your liberal fantasy that maintains the status quo.

[RandomGuy]

What is the conservative fantasy? That we will rely on fossil fuels for decades to come, that's a fact. That nuclear and hydrogen are the only technologies in existence that can make a significant dent in our dependence on fossil fuels, that's a fact. Conservatives are for pursuing those technologies, it's liberals who are stuck dreaming of a wind/solar/geothermal/etc. economy.

Last night Obama gave the same speech on friendly renewable energy that Carter gave 31 years ago. Very little progress has been made on those technologies not because of conservatives but because they simply cannot meet our energy demands and never will be more than a supplemental energy source. It's your liberal fantasy that maintains the status quo.

mmm "facts".

When I start teaching my kids about critical thinking and how to really analyse arguments made for/against something, one of the first things I will teach them is to break out the waders when someone starts trotting things out as "facts".

I call "bullshit" on your facts. They are opinions, nothing more.

Let's start with some actual facts. I would guess you probably don't really have all the facts you need to distinguish what is fantasy and what isn't.

Let's start with the nuclear fantasy.

How many nuclear reactors have been built in the US at their original projected cost?

[RandomGuy]

Last night Obama gave the same speech on friendly renewable energy that Carter gave 31 years ago. Very little progress has been made on those technologies...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PVeff(rev100414).png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PVeff(rev100414).png

Efficiencies of photovoltaic have more than doubled since carter gave that speech.

Looks like at least one of your statements is provably wrong. This is simply the best research efficiencies, but commercially available tech simply follows along a few years behind. Some newer tech wasn't even available in 1977.

Price per generated watt has come down consistently over time, hand-in-hand with efficiency gains.

Can you tell me why you think this trend will not continue with more research?

[RandomGuy]

Photovoltaic efficiency also fails to encapsulate some of the other forms of gains in thermal solar.

Parabolic troughs provide flexible, low-tech heat and potential power. Several recent start-ups have made some pretty good steps towards bringing down costs by simplifying designs and materials.

Heliostat plants have started to come into their own at a utility scale, and have solved the energy storage problem that has, so far, limited many renewables. They can generate power 24/7 using nothing but the sun.

Pretty much every form of renewable energy has come down in cost per Mwh since Carter gave that speech.

As the price has come down comparatively to fossil fuels, more capital has been attracted to the start-ups and labe accelerating the process.

[RandomGuy]

That nuclear and hydrogen are the only technologies in existence that can make a significant dent in our dependence on fossil fuels, that's a fact.

By the by, "hydrogen" is not a source of energy. It is simply a means to store energy.

You must still get the energy to produce it from somewhere.

Just wanted to make that clear.

[George Gervin's Afro]

crickets...


I guess thats what happens when your arguments originate from Fox news and talk radio...

[Wild Cobra]

6) "Mission Accomplished!"

That is this suppose to mean?

[SnakeBoy]

Efficiencies of photovoltaic have more than doubled since carter gave that speech.


Doubled to not even fucking close to good enough. So in another 31 years maybe they can double all the way up to still not good enough. Like I said, you are the status quo.

[SnakeBoy]

I call "bullshit" on your facts. They are opinions, nothing more.


So you deny that we'll be dependent on fossil fuels for what 10, 20, 30 years? When in your liberal mind will we be off of oil and using solar & wind for all of our needs. Let me ask you, how long has Germany been "going green" and how much of energy do they now derive from renewables?

[ElNono]

By the by, "hydrogen" is not a source of energy. It is simply a means to store energy.

You must still get the energy to produce it from somewhere.

Just wanted to make that clear.

Not only that. Because there are two conversion processes involved, it's pretty inefficient. Even less efficient than combustion engines.

[Wild Cobra]

Doubled to not even fucking close to good enough. So in another 31 years maybe they can double all the way up to still not good enough. Like I said, you are the status quo.
Photocells will become a viable way to supplement small scale needs like a home, but I seriously doubt it will ever be viable for large scale electrical production. There is better technology for this purpose. I forget the name, but it entails concentrating the suns energy with mirrors, then run a steam turbine or other similar method.

[RandomGuy]

So you deny that we'll be dependent on fossil fuels for what 10, 20, 30 years? When in your liberal mind will we be off of oil and using solar & wind for all of our needs. Let me ask you, how long has Germany been "going green" and how much of energy do they now derive from renewables?

No, actually. I do not deny it. We will be dependent on fossil fuels for at least that long, in all probability. The suck part is that those fuels are goign to get VERY expensive in that time frame.

I have never said that we will be able to completely get rid of them and only use solar and wind. That would be economically unsound in all likelihood.

To answer your question:


Since 1997, Germany and the other states of the European Union have been working towards a target of 12% renewable energy electricity by 2010. This target was surpassed already in 2007 when the renewable energy share in electricity consumption in Germany reached 14%.[4] On April 26, 2007, Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel announced that this target would rise to 27% by 2020. Electricity use is to be cut by 11%, and the number of cogeneration plants is to double.[5]

[edit] Current situation
In 2009, the percentable of renewable sources in Germany's total energy consumption was 10.1% (+8.6% compared to 2008). Biomass contributed 7.0% of the total energy consumption, wind power 1.6%, hydro power 0.8% and other renewables 0.7%.[6]

The ratio of renewables sources of the total electricity consumption was 16.1% (+5.9%). Wind power produced 6.5% and bioenergy 5.2% of the total electricity consumption in 2009.[6]

There you go. Does that help?

What exactly is your point?

[RandomGuy]

Doubled to not even fucking close to good enough. So in another 31 years maybe they can double all the way up to still not good enough. Like I said, you are the status quo.

Actually it is "fucking close to good enough".

It has brought down the cost per Kwh to be closer and closer to that of coal/nuclear.

That is the definition of "fucking close to good enough", because when it eventually becomes cheaper than coal, you will see a rather massive switchover.

You didn't answer my question.

Is there any reason to think the the cost of photovoltaic and other solar power will STOP getting less expensive as technology progresses?

[RandomGuy]

A Brief History of Solar PV: the road from $200 a watt to $1.50 a watt (http://www.greentechhistory.com/2009/02/a-brief-history-of-solar-pv-the-road-from-200-a-watt-to-150-a-watt/)

That has a pretty good discussion about getting to "grid parity" when you get your installed cost for a KwH down to what people pay now.


Already solar modules have come down to $2.70. Grid parity, you need to get down to $1-1.50. I raise the efficiency from 17 to 20 percent and thin the wafer down 20 to30 percent. When I improve efficiency, my balance of system comes down. Also, by thinning the wafer, the wafer is almost 70% of the cost, if I can thin it down by 30%, I can drop the cost. So, really, you have three places where you make a huge dent in the cost. Because of efficiency, your dollar per watt is low.

The key here is to get there with low cost technology. I can make in my lab 23 or 24 percent cell if you want, if you allow me to use high cost technology. I’m trying to get there without adding to many processing steps.

Our plan is that the line we will have next year in 2010, it may not go straight from 17 to 20. We are hoping we will go past 18 by the end of this year and closer to 20 percent by 2010.


A good research push seems to be all we need. It will happen eventually, but why not speed the natural progression up a bit?

[RandomGuy]

The real interesting thing about PV is that no one really knows how long they will produce electricity, because the first primitive PV cells made in the 50's are still chunking out power.

Output does drop over time, but the same is true for any aging power plant. Most power plants are considered to be ancient by the time they hit 25 years. PV's don't have any moving parts to break, so that is one thing in their favor, IMO.

Again this is just a consideration of ONE type of renewable tech.

I am still betting on solar thermal, using melted salts and heliostats to be the real game changer for renewables.

(edit)
If one starts amortizing the costs of PV over a 50 year lifetime, as opposed to a 30 year life span for most coal/gas plants, that does tend to drive down the overall costs considerably. If it is more expensive per watt up front, but saves you from having to replace it for 20 years longer... that drives the Net Present Value of the project up considerably.

If you like, I can break out my cost-accounting textbook and work up a formal comparison. I might just do so because it would be fun. yes, i am that kind of nerd.

[SnakeBoy]

There you go. Does that help?

What exactly is your point?

My point is they have been all in for "decades" and they're not even close to being free of their dependency on fossil fuels. Remember I said it's a fact that we will be dependent on fossil fuels for decades and you called "bullshit". So is my fact bullshit or not RG?

[SnakeBoy]

Is there any reason to think the the cost of photovoltaic and other solar power will STOP getting less expensive as technology progresses?

I never said the cost wouldn't come down I said the technology can't provide enough energy to meet our needs.

[EmptyMan]

America has one thing ladies and gentlemen. America has rainbows. Yes, rainbows. I stand here tonight, before the people of this great nation and pledge to every man woman and child that we have begun to implement the necessary steps to harness the power of said rainbows.

The days of oil and coal are over. A new age is upon us! And God...Bless...The United States of America.

[Wild Cobra]

The real interesting thing about PV is that no one really knows how long they will produce electricity, because the first primitive PV cells made in the 50's are still chunking out power.

Output does drop over time, but the same is true for any aging power plant. Most power plants are considered to be ancient by the time they hit 25 years. PV's don't have any moving parts to break, so that is one thing in their favor, IMO.

Again this is just a consideration of ONE type of renewable tech.

I am still betting on solar thermal, using melted salts and heliostats to be the real game changer for renewables.

(edit)
If one starts amortizing the costs of PV over a 50 year lifetime, as opposed to a 30 year life span for most coal/gas plants, that does tend to drive down the overall costs considerably. If it is more expensive per watt up front, but saves you from having to replace it for 20 years longer... that drives the Net Present Value of the project up considerably.

If you like, I can break out my cost-accounting textbook and work up a formal comparison. I might just do so because it would be fun. yes, i am that kind of nerd.
I'm with you on solar cells for small scale, like covering a roof. However, when you take the day/night and seasonal cycle for a fixed array, there is about a 30% light effectiveness under full sunlight at the equator. That is when you have them optimally perpendicular to the noon sun. If you take that 6% x 30% you get about a 1.8% effectiveness. Full sunlight at the earths surface is about 950 watts per square meter, maybe 1000. This means, with no clouds, we can generate 17 to 18 watt average, or 410 to 432 watt-hours per square meter per day. If you have say a 25 x 40 ft section or roof perpendicular to the noon equinox sun, then you have about 93 square meters and about 38 to 40 KHW of supplemental energy daily. That can be a nice savings from not using energy off the grid.

large scale, it is far more effective to use movable concentrators. PV would take too many square miles for a large scale power plant.

[Winehole23]

The days of oil and coal are over. A new age is upon us!Coal is so not over, dude.

[Winehole23]

And the age of oil ain't quite dead yet.

[RandomGuy]

My point is they have been all in for "decades" and they're not even close to being free of their dependency on fossil fuels. Remember I said it's a fact that we will be dependent on fossil fuels for decades and you called "bullshit". So is my fact bullshit or not RG?

They haven't been "all in", not even by a long shot.

We will indeed be dependent on fossil fuels until we develop other technologies, and/or until they get so expensive we are forced to modify our economy through higher prices, as I have already stated.

The rest of your "facts" are ill-informed opinions, however. They remain bullshit, and provably so.

[RandomGuy]

I never said the cost wouldn't come down I said the technology can't provide enough energy to meet our needs.

Something I would agree with in the short term.

No one technology or source of energy will likely be sufficient to "meet our needs".

The biggest problem with nukes is that the best estimate of what it would take to get to France's 71% electricity from nukes would be the construction of 700 new plants over the next 30 years.

If you limit yourself to that tech, you have to explain to me how you intend to contain the massive cost overruns that nukes are prone to. No nuclear reactor has EVER been built at under 200% of its original budget estimate, and has ever been built without government subsidies on a rather substantial scale.

San Antonio has direct experience where the board of the local utility directly hid the true cost estimates for the expansion if its nuke capacity from the public.

Add that to some very valid concerns due to Al Qaeda's stated intention and active plans to acquire nuclear material for a dirty bomb. It is VERY expensive to ensure that fuel/waste shipments are reasonably secure from 15-20 fanatics who aren't afraid to die and can be easily armed with automatic weapons and large amounts of explosives.

To be honest, one can overcome cost some portion of the cost overruns using standardized designs, but one can't really overcome the NIMBY lawsuits that delay any project.

I have little doubt that we will build some nukes, but I have some grave reservations about making more waste/fuel shipment targets available, and given historical cost overruns it seems that nuclear power isn't all that economically competitive from a practical standpoint.

I am really not all that against nukes, I just don't see it as being as cheap as its proponents seem to think it will be, and the unavoidable problem of the waste is something that is really hard to estimate true costs for.

For all the bother, I would rather spend the money on wind/solar simply because the costs are far more predictable.

[RandomGuy]

I'm with you on solar cells for small scale, like covering a roof. However, when you take the day/night and seasonal cycle for a fixed array, there is about a 30% light effectiveness under full sunlight at the equator. That is when you have them optimally perpendicular to the noon sun. If you take that 6% x 30% you get about a 1.8% effectiveness. Full sunlight at the earths surface is about 950 watts per square meter, maybe 1000. This means, with no clouds, we can generate 17 to 18 watt average, or 410 to 432 watt-hours per square meter per day. If you have say a 25 x 40 ft section or roof perpendicular to the noon equinox sun, then you have about 93 square meters and about 38 to 40 KHW of supplemental energy daily. That can be a nice savings from not using energy off the grid.

large scale, it is far more effective to use movable concentrators. PV would take too many square miles for a large scale power plant.

I agree fully.

PV also has the advantage of producing the most power during the "peak power" periods, meaning that you can "smooth" your consumption somewhat, and that makes it a lot easier to plan from the utility's standpoint.

Distributed power solutions also would tend to reduce the amount of energy wasted in distribution.

That means that even if it is more expensive per watt from a generating standpoint, you can avoid a lot of the extra costs in building transmission lines, and vulnerability to disruption.

Here is a bit I snagged that does point out some valid drawbacks to solar/wind power though:


More fun with solar

A small island (.5mi x 5 mi) has decided to go 100% green with solar. Each home and business will install enough solar to carry 100% of its load. They will use the cheaper grid storage method so they don't have to buy expensive batteries greatly reducing the cost of the project. The island is a half mile East to West and 5 miles North to South with a load of about 10MW at peak. Everyone installs their solar and waits for their electric bill with anticipated glee. They couldn't wait to see a $0.00 bill!

In the old days the electric utility had to run its generators for reliability. This meant running 12.5MW units. Each unit could carry the island but they had to run the units in such a way to survive the loss of a unit. A second unit could handle the load for the loss of first but it cannot handle the shock. Even the robust units the utility bought cannot handle more than 10% surge. This means each unit can't pick up more than 1.2MW without tripping. Each unit can change its output (ramp) by 5MW/minute and needs to have ½ MW output to remain stable. If 4 units are on line each would carry 2.5MW for the loss of one, each of the remaining 3 would split the 2.5MW the lost unit was carrying. So the utility always ran 4 units. Running 4 units is expensive and this extra cost was added to the electric bill on top of the actual power bought.


After the customers went 100% solar the utility looked at the new green world. The island is ½ mile across East to West with Westerly high-level winds of 30kts. This means one cloud could then cover the entire island shutting down the solar in 1 minute. That means the island grid could go from 0 to almost 10MW in 1 minute for a really dark storm cloud.

The utility can't plan for "most of the time" but they have to plan worst case, so they have to plan for the occasional Cecil B. DeMille black cloud. They realize that they will need two units to be able to meet the 10MW/min rate of change. But they will have to add a third unit in case they loose one unit. They are required to plan for the loss of one unit.

Since the islands customers are using zero power and each unit requires a half MW output to remain stable the utility had to purchase a device that would waste the 1.5MW put out from the 3 units. The device they chose was a synchronous condenser to provide voltage support for the island. At the end of the month the utility sent a bill to the customers. The bill was for back up service. It covered the cost of running 3 units at minimum output plus the cost of running and extra 1.5MW.

The moral of the story is this; after the island went green the utility was still running three of the four generators it was running before the island went green. The total heat being dumped into the environment is still close to what it was before the island went green then what you might think. Why? First 3 out of 4 generators are still running. Second the customers are still using 10MW of power and that is 10MW of heat. Third the utility had to add a 1.5MW load to keep the new world stable. Yes the island has a net drop in consumption, but I used an island so it was easy to make it a closed system. Once you see green energy in a closed system you start to see that most of the numbers quoted and most of the conversations are only discussing limited aspects of the system, and always the best aspects of the system, and not the whole system.

The purpose of this was to get people thinking of the whole picture. The output of an electric car is not just the car but the coal power plant attached to it. The output of a gasoline car is not just the car but the refinery.

[RandomGuy]

I do believe that we can replace coal with wind and solar. That makes it a bit more than "supplementary".

Here is why:

As mentioned before, the Chinese are building 2 new coal plants per week, and that is likely to continue. This will rapidly drive global demand for coal up, just as their useage of oil has done something similar to oil. This "locks" them into using coal for the lifetime of those plants, approximately 30 years.

Coal, like oil, faces the same depletion problems that oil does. Yes, there is a lot of it, but it is getting increasingly expensive to mine over time for many of the same reasons.

Coal energy is somewhat tied to the price of oil as it is an alternative source of fuel.

Over time, the grandfathered "dirty" coal plants will start obsolescing. The newer plants that must be built as replacements face higher scrubbing requirements in terms of pollution reduction, and this will drive the costs of new coal plants higher comparative to past trends.

Technology will bring the costs of wind/solar down at the same time that coal energy starts getting COMPARATIVELY more expensive. Not only will the tech get better, efficiencies of scale will start to kick in, further driving costs down.

All this will happen whether we do anything about it or not.

Personally, all I am really advocating is that we get a step or two ahead of this.

Yes, it requires an up-front investment that will make prices higher in the short term.

Over the long term that means we get to:

1) divorce ourselves from the price volatility that fossil fuels are prone to, and
2) keep from having to import quite so much of our energy base.

I would sooo much rather our money go to providing jobs in the US than to propping up tinpot jackasses like Chavez, Khadafi, or Amadinidork.

Long term it will mean that we will end up paying MUCH less for energy, as we will be insulated from the worst effects of Peak Oil.

[RandomGuy]

Photocells will become a viable way to supplement small scale needs like a home, but I seriously doubt it will ever be viable for large scale electrical production. There is better technology for this purpose. I forget the name, but it entails concentrating the suns energy with mirrors, then run a steam turbine or other similar method.

You are talking about "power towers" or heliostats. The tech part of what is termed "thermal solar", although even within this term there are a couple of different technologies.

"Concentrating/Concentrate Solar Power" is probably the best term.