Rice farmers in Texas take it in the shorts

[RandomGuy]

:nutkick:

Texas Rice Farmers Lose Their Water .

AUSTIN, Texas—The state's persistent drought has claimed its latest victims: rice farmers.

Because of low water levels in several lakes that serve as reservoirs here, officials said Friday that they wouldn't release irrigation water to farmers in three counties downstream that produce much of the rice in the state.

The rice industry contributes about $394 million annually to the economy of the state, which produces about 5% of the nation's rice. The three counties—Colorado, Wharton and Matagorda—lie west of humid Houston and usually get enough rain to make rice farming practicable.

This is the first time in its 78-year history that the Lower Colorado River Authority, which is based here, has cut off water to farmers. The agency waited until the last possible moment—a minute before midnight on Thursday—to make its decision, hoping that water levels would rise enough to avert a cutoff.

The irrigation ban is not expected to affect the shelf price of rice, but it has forced some farmers to lay off employees and consider diversifying into other crops.

"This is my livelihood at stake," said Ronald Gertson, a Texas rice farmer who projected he would produce only about 40% of his typical rice crop this year.

"It sticks in the craw" of farmers, Mr. Gertson said, that the authority will continue to release water to golf courses and other recreational customers that pay higher rates for a guaranteed water supply.

In a statement, the agency said that farmers "pay considerably less for water than cities and industry. And therefore, their water is considered 'interruptible' during a severe drought."

Texans in the rice business said they could probably stay afloat this year, thanks in part to crop insurance, but they worried about another year of interrupted irrigation water.

"If this happens again, we'll be in much more trouble," said Dick Ottis, the president of the Rice Belt Warehouse in El Campo, Texas, which stores and dries rice. The warehouse plans to store more corn, wheat and other commodities this year, he said, but those crops do not produce the profit margins rice does.

"I have already let go about 20% of our employees, because I knew this day was coming about," Mr. Ottis said, adding that his family had been involved in rice farming for almost 100 years and had lived through droughts, but none this bad.

It always seemed like the good Lord would bless us with more rain," he said.

But there appears to be little relief in sight from the drought that still afflicts 85% of Texas. Temperatures are expected to be above normal this summer, said John Nielsen-Gammon, the state climatologist.

Rainfall levels are harder to predict, he said, but "we are in a dry stretch now, which will be worrisome if it continues. It reminds me of last year."

The water agency said it plans to find new supplies of water to avoid a repeat of this year's problems.

Farmers agree. "The development of new reservoirs is imperative," said Daniel Berglund, a 49-year-old rice farmer in Markham, Texas, who said he woke up at 1:15 a.m. Friday and checked to see whether the lakes, against all odds, had risen high enough to allow irrigation water to be released.

"Consumers only see grocery shelves stacked with food, floor to ceiling," he said. "This is an example of the risks we take as farmers. When you lose irrigation water, it stops everything," he said.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204571404577257663909299488.html

I find it ironic that a state that puts so little stock in the possibility that we might be fucking up our climate systems through our own actions is being smacked around by weather that seems to be the worst in living memory.


I guess we get to choose between farming jobs and oil jobs?

[coyotes_geek]

Droughts existed before we started driving pickups and SUV's. HTH.

As for the non-strawman portion of the OP, there have been fights over water between farmers and municipalities for as long as there have been farmers and municipalities.

[Winehole23]

newsy.

[RandomGuy]

Droughts existed before we started driving pickups and SUV's. HTH.

As for the non-strawman portion of the OP, there have been fights over water between farmers and municipalities for as long as there have been farmers and municipalities.

There's a strawman portion?

[coyotes_geek]

There's a strawman portion?

Yes.

[RandomGuy]

Droughts existed before we started driving pickups and SUV's.

Maybe this is the strawman portion?

I was unaware that any climate scientist, or myself, claimed that droughts didn't exist before the CO2 spike.

That would make the implication that they did, a strawman, to my understanding.

Did I miss something?

[101A]

There's a strawman portion?


I'm afraid, considering your reputation on the board, you cannot post an article such as this without there being an implied argument attached to it. Therefore, I would have to agree, there is, in fact, a straw man component to the post.

Typecasting can be a bitch.

[RandomGuy]

I'm afraid, considering your reputation on the board, you cannot post an article such as this without there being an implied argument attached to it. Therefore, I would have to agree, there is, in fact, a straw man component to the post.

Typecasting can be a bitch.

Heh, ask Darrin.

I still am not getting it though.

The state's population and state government is solidly republican, and they tend to be the most skeptical about AGW.

That doesn't seem to be a distortion. I am honestly a bit confused.

[coyotes_geek]

Maybe this is the strawman portion?

I was unaware that any climate scientist, or myself, claimed that droughts didn't exist before the CO2 spike.

That would make the implication that they did, a strawman, to my understanding.

Did I miss something?

Yes. You missed the part where you erected a strawman about this being some kind of conflict between farming jobs and oil jobs. This is about farmers and municipal water users in Austin.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Droughts existed before we started driving pickups and SUV's. HTH.

As for the non-strawman portion of the OP, there have been fights over water between farmers and municipalities for as long as there have been farmers and municipalities.

Sure but water shortages like we have seen in Austin over the last couple of years have not occurred. Town Lake and Lake Austin are disappearing and rice farming requires you to flood square miles of land and keep it flooded for months on end. The is particular fight has been going on for over a year and the trend upstream has not changed. Austin won and the rice farmers lost.

[coyotes_geek]

Sure but water shortages like we have seen in Austin over the last couple of years have not occurred. Town Lake and Lake Austin are disappearing and rice farming requires you to flood square miles of land and keep it flooded for months on end. The is particular fight has been going on for over a year and the trend upstream has not changed. Austin won and the rice farmers lost.

The fight's been going on longer than that, but otherwise I agree with your post. The municipality usually wins these fights.

Even with the win, Austin still has some pretty serious water issues coming. The population just continues to grow and grow and grow, yet the water supply doesn't. Everyone's water bill is going to go up. I'm giving serious thought to zeroscaping my back yard. I'd do the front too if not for HOA restrictions.

[jack sommerset]

This truly saddens me. Most farmers already have off the farm jobs so that they can farm their farms. The first job God gave to man was farming. This really must upset the democrats, these farmers are mostly poor as is and the huge corporations keep taking jobs from them. Pray for a spiritual and physical harvest and for strength and perseverance.

[CosmicCowboy]

This truly saddens me. Most farmers already have off the farm jobs so that they can farm their farms. The first job God gave to man was farming. This really must upset the democrats, these farmers are mostly poor as is and the huge corporations keep taking jobs from them. Pray for a spiritual and physical harvest and for strength and perseverance.

You obviously don't know any rice farmers. That's like a license to print money.

[RandomGuy]

Yes. You missed the part where you erected a strawman about this being some kind of conflict between farming jobs and oil jobs. This is about farmers and municipal water users in Austin.

It isn't a strawman at all.

If AGW is real, and the CO2 we crank out in its various forms, such as oil burning, is permanently changing our climate, then if we choose to keep buring such fuels, we are choosing the oil jobs over the farm jobs that will be lost to whatever changes we are making/acclerating. (edit) Those changes will include droughts or floods, such as we are experiencing.(end edit)

That is a statement based on simple economic principles.

There are costs to every action, including doing nothing.

In deference to the skeptics who choose, against the bulk of scientific evidence in my opinion, I put a "?" at the end of the last sentence in the OP, and an "if" above.

Provocative I shoot for, but strawmen are not my thing. :toast

[RandomGuy]

The fight's been going on longer than that, but otherwise I agree with your post. The municipality usually wins these fights.

Even with the win, Austin still has some pretty serious water issues coming. The population just continues to grow and grow and grow, yet the water supply doesn't. Everyone's water bill is going to go up. I'm giving serious thought to zeroscaping my back yard. I'd do the front too if not for HOA restrictions.


Respectfully:

Xeriscaping.

I certainly don't want to be chained to my yard whenever I get around to buying. Mowing watering bla bla bla.

Something simple and neat, but not a full out lawn.

I can see a little bit of actual grass for the back yard, just to let the kiddos play around with tho'.

[RandomGuy]

Sure but water shortages like we have seen in Austin over the last couple of years have not occurred. Town Lake and Lake Austin are disappearing and rice farming requires you to flood square miles of land and keep it flooded for months on end. The is particular fight has been going on for over a year and the trend upstream has not changed. Austin won and the rice farmers lost.

Oddly enough, mechanical rice farming takes a LOT more water than the labor-intensive kinds, to my understanding.

(dimly remembered data from a geography class in 1997--labor intensive farming also yields a lot more per acre than mechanical farming, think Asia)

[TeyshaBlue]

Respectfully:

Xeriscaping.

I certainly don't want to be chained to my yard whenever I get around to buying. Mowing watering bla bla bla.

Something simple and neat, but not a full out lawn.

I can see a little bit of actual grass for the back yard, just to let the kiddos play around with tho'.

meh. Xeriscaping in Texas looks like hell.

Cactus and succulents.:lol

[coyotes_geek]

It isn't a strawman at all.

If AGW is real, and the CO2 we crank out in its various forms, such as oil burning, is permanently changing our climate, then if we choose to keep buring such fuels, we are choosing the oil jobs over the farm jobs that will be lost to whatever changes we are making/acclerating. (edit) Those changes will include droughts or floods, such as we are experiencing.(end edit)

That is a statement based on simple economic principles.

There are costs to every action, including doing nothing.

In deference to the skeptics who choose, against the bulk of scientific evidence in my opinion, I put a "?" at the end of the last sentence in the OP, and an "if" above.

Provocative I shoot for, but strawmen are not my thing. :toast

Still looks like a strawman to me. Two or three years ago when Lake Travis was full would you have taken issue with someone giving the oil industry credit for our bountiful water supply?



Respectfully:

Xeriscaping.

I certainly don't want to be chained to my yard whenever I get around to buying. Mowing watering bla bla bla.

Something simple and neat, but not a full out lawn.

I can see a little bit of actual grass for the back yard, just to let the kiddos play around with tho'.

Doh! Appreciate the correction.

What's not to love about less mowing and lower water bills?

[SnakeBoy]

I find it ironic that a state that puts so little stock in the possibility that we might be fucking up our climate systems through our own actions is being smacked around by weather that seems to be the worst in living memory.

1918 & 1956 don't count since you don't remember them or because they don't fit into your agw theory?

[coyotes_geek]

meh. Xeriscaping in Texas looks like hell.

Cactus and succulents.:lol

Astroturf FTW!!!!

[CosmicCowboy]

meh. Xeriscaping in Texas looks like hell.

Cactus and succulents.:lol

IMHO mine at the ranch looks OK...


URL=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/32/ranchandcostas001.jpg/]http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/7995/ranchandcostas001.jpg[/URL]

http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/2947/ranchandcostas006.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/38/ranchandcostas006.jpg/)

[TeyshaBlue]

Are those Mimosa saplings in the foreground of the second pic?

[CosmicCowboy]

Are those Mimosa saplings in the foreground of the second pic?

nope...pride of barbados... (Caesalpinia pulcherrima) also visible bouganvilla, esperanza, firebush...thats a spring picture...they get a lot bigger by the fall...also have a lot of palm trees, mexican salvia, native yucca, cactus, etc.

[TeyshaBlue]

Cool. Look just like mimosa leaves...now I notice the blooms are different.

[SnakeBoy]

nope...pride of barbados... (Caesalpinia pulcherrima)

Do your's make it though the winter (your south of SA right?) or do they die down to the ground?

[Wild Cobra]

The fight's been going on longer than that, but otherwise I agree with your post. The municipality usually wins these fights.

Even with the win, Austin still has some pretty serious water issues coming. The population just continues to grow and grow and grow, yet the water supply doesn't. Everyone's water bill is going to go up. I'm giving serious thought to zeroscaping my back yard. I'd do the front too if not for HOA restrictions.
Water is something the state and federal governments need to address more than other things in their political basketball game.

Instead of investing in green technology which we don't need government influence on, how about starting an infrastructure of desalination plants. Water is a national resource that we will continue to run short of, that will do this nation harm if we don't plan ahead. That is, unless we start making policies to make this nation a zero growth rate nation.

[Drachen]

Water is something the state and federal governments need to address more than other things in their political basketball game.

Instead of investing in green technology which we don't need government influence on, how about starting an infrastructure of desalination plants. Water is a national resource that we will continue to run short of, that will do this nation harm if we don't plan ahead. That is, unless we start making policies to make this nation a zero growth rate nation.

Oh, don't worry about water. When it is necessary private investment will provide it for us.

[Wild Cobra]

Oh, don't worry about water. When it is necessary private investment will provide it for us.
Water is something necessary for everyone. Not just some. Investing in water infrastructure would clearly fall under "promote the general welfare." with an ever increasing population and relatively fixed water supply that is variable also.... wouldn't it be prudent to think of the future?

[Drachen]

Water is something necessary for everyone. Not just some. Investing in water infrastructure would clearly fall under "promote the general welfare." with an ever increasing population and relatively fixed water supply that is variable also.... wouldn't it be prudent to think of the future?

what good is water infrastructure without energy to power it. Sooooooo..... Energy is necessary for everyone, not just some. Investing in energy infrastructure would clearly fall under "promote the general welfare." Wouldn't it be prudent to think of the future?

[Wild Cobra]

what good is water infrastructure without energy to power it. Sooooooo..... Energy is necessary for everyone, not just some. Investing in energy infrastructure would clearly fall under "promote the general welfare." Wouldn't it be prudent to think of the future?
It doesn't matter so much in my opinion if energy prices increase to the point that few can use it to their desire. Water however is necessary to support life. I don't consider you comparison, comparable.

[Drachen]

It doesn't matter so much in my opinion if energy prices increase to the point that few can use it to their desire. Water however is necessary to support life. I don't consider you comparison, comparable.

You know what will happen if energy prices rise to the point that only few can use it. Desalination plants, Water treatment plants, etc will have to continue to use energy (that is, if they want to continue to make water). Sooooo...... that same water that is necessary to support life will only be available to the few that can pay to use it to their desire.

[MannyIsGod]

Water in the west is pretty much screwed beyond all recognition. Too many rights to water handed out like - cough - it was raining from the sky.

[Wild Cobra]

You know what will happen if energy prices rise to the point that only few can use it. Desalination plants, Water treatment plants, etc will have to continue to use energy (that is, if they want to continue to make water). Sooooo...... that same water that is necessary to support life will only be available to the few that can pay to use it to their desire.
Don't you see shades of gray, or do you only see black and white?

[MannyIsGod]

I only see in shades of black and surgeon.

[Drachen]

Don't you see shades of gray, or do you only see black and white?

I see that the two are intertwined and the only way to seperate them is to kill a ton of humans (which would extinguish the need to find other ways of getting water like desalination plants). The fact that you can't see this is a little ridiculous to me. Like it or not at current population (even moreso at greater populatiosn), energy is a necessity on par with water and food for humans to survive since energy is needed to power the pursuit of both of those endeavors. If you feel that the government should step in on those issues, then it would seem only logical that you would make the same arguement in favor of responsible energy production.

[Wild Cobra]

I see that the two are intertwined and the only way to seperate them is to kill a ton of humans (which would extinguish the need to find other ways of getting water like desalination plants). The fact that you can't see this is a little ridiculous to me. Like it or not at current population (even moreso at greater populatiosn), energy is a necessity on par with water and food for humans to survive since energy is needed to power the pursuit of both of those endeavors. If you feel that the government should step in on those issues, then it would seem only logical that you would make the same arguement in favor of responsible energy production.
I'm not going to spend much time explaining my point of view on this. I think we can agree to disagree. I do understand what you are saying about energy being necessary, but I disagree with it being equal to water. I don't have a problem with subsidizing water costs, which breaks from my normal "no subsidy" speak. Energy prices may rise to the point that less and less people can have lifestyles like we do today. That isn't going to have the same impact as if we were to run out of drinkable water, and water for crops.

[CosmicCowboy]

WC, it takes a shitload of energy to desalinate water in large quantities.

Just sayin...

[Drachen]

I'm not going to spend much time explaining my point of view on this. I think we can agree to disagree. I do understand what you are saying about energy being necessary, but I disagree with it being equal to water. I don't have a problem with subsidizing water costs, which breaks from my normal "no subsidy" speak. Energy prices may rise to the point that less and less people can have lifestyles like we do today. That isn't going to have the same impact as if we were to run out of drinkable water, and water for crops.

yes, but just as you are suggesting that we can use less and less electricity, we can use less and less water. We use twice the world's average water. That can come down substantially (through increased water prices) before we need any kind of those dirty subsidies, don't you think? Just as an example San Antonio used the same amount of water in in 2009 as it did in 1984 (despite having a population that was 65% larger). We use 45 Gallons less than the average american per day. Psssst, this was the doing of the dirty unwashed hippy environmentalists and their love for the blind salamander.

[CosmicCowboy]

yes, but just as you are suggesting that we can use less and less electricity, we can use less and less water. We use twice the world's average water. That can come down substantially (through increased water prices) before we need any kind of those dirty subsidies, don't you think? Just as an example San Antonio used the same amount of water in in 2009 as it did in 1984 (despite having a population that was 65% larger). We use 45 Gallons less than the average american per day. Psssst, this was the doing of the dirty unwashed hippy environmentalists and their love for the blind salamander.

That and screaming high SAWS bills.

[Drachen]

That and screaming high SAWS bills.

I have had a pretty stable water bill myself. Between 40 and 45 dollars for the entirety of the four years that I have owned my house (5 people). I don't own a ranch like you but my lot is also larger than average. I find this to be absolutely reasonable.

Also, the blind salamander is the reason that we have federal restrictions put into place as to how much water san antonio can pump from the aquifer. Thus the lowering of our water usage.

[Drachen]

WC, it takes a shitload of energy to desalinate water in large quantities.

Just sayin...

Thank you.

[MannyIsGod]

Should just make Lake Wild Cobra to solve the water issue.

[Drachen]

Should just make Lake Wild Cobra to solve the water issue.

sorry manny...

1/10

[MannyIsGod]

East German judge, TBH

[Drachen]

East German judge, TBH

:lol

Ihre vesuch ist fur Scheisse

[Wild Cobra]

WC, it takes a shitload of energy to desalinate water in large quantities.

Just sayin...

Yes, I know. Probably a good use of solar and wind energy since desalination wouldn't require on demand energy. It could operate as energy is available.

Again, subsidizing clean water and irrigation water is acceptable to me.

[Wild Cobra]

sorry manny...

1/10
Yep, he and others keep coming up with things so lame.

[Drachen]

Yep, he and others keep coming up with things so lame.

Sigh, I know someone else will come in and bash you for this so I won't even bother. I really just prefer to let you speak for yourself.

[SnakeBoy]

You know what will happen if energy prices rise to the point that only few can use it.

The price would plummet.

[Drachen]

The price would plummet.

not if that high price is the new equilibrium on the demand curve.

[Wild Cobra]

The price would plummet.
Disagree.

not if that high price is the new equilibrium on the demand curve.
Agree.

[RandomGuy]

It doesn't matter so much in my opinion if energy prices increase to the point that few can use it to their desire. Water however is necessary to support life. I don't consider you comparison, comparable.

At this point, electricity has become essential to life as well. Unless you can figure out a way to feed 300,000,000 people without refrigeration of the food required to sustain them.

I would also point out the society we have built for ourselves demands it. If you don't think it is essential, feel free to go down to the local creek with a rock and see if you can hold a full time job and spend the time necessary to hand wash your clothes.

[RandomGuy]

It doesn't matter so much in my opinion if energy prices increase to the point that few can use it to their desire. Water however is necessary to support life. I don't consider you comparison, comparable.

At this point, electricity has become essential to life as well. Unless you can figure out a way to feed 300,000,000 people without refrigeration of the food required to sustain them.

I would also point out the society we have built for ourselves demands it. If you don't think it is essential, feel free to go down to the local creek with a rock and see if you can hold a full time job and spend the time necessary to hand wash your clothes.

[Wild Cobra]

RG, It appears to me you are going to the extreme, as if we were to run out. That isn't going to happen. We can build power plants as needed, but not natural resources. We may run extremely low on fossil fuels in the future, but we have other means of generation electricity. water as as a little different. We can't just make it rain more, as needed.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

RG, It appears to me you are going to the extreme, as if we were to run out. That isn't going to happen. We can build power plants as needed, but not natural resources. We may run extremely low on fossil fuels in the future, but we have other means of generation electricity. water as as a little different. We can't just make it rain more, as needed.

No its more like you are dumbing it down so you can take a position. The two are intertwined. It takes water to generate power and it takes power to process and pump water. they are both absolutely key infrastructure to the American way of life.

You can sit there and tell yourself that we can just build power stations and refineries forever and that its feasible and/or desirable all day that does not make it true no matter how many gas boiler brochures you bust out.

[Drachen]

WC, It appears to me you are going to the extreme, as if we were to run out. That isn't going to happen. We can build desalination plants as needed, but not natural resources like coal and oil. We may run extremely low on fresh water in the future, but we have other means of making water potable. Oil is a little different. We can't just make more dinosaurs die a million years ago, as needed.

[Wild Cobra]

WC, It appears to me you are going to the extreme, as if we were to run out. That isn't going to happen. We can build desalination plants as needed, but not natural resources like coal and oil. We may run extremely low on fresh water in the future, but we have other means of making water potable. Oil is a little different. We can't just make more dinosaurs die a million years ago, as needed.
And the differences are...

Can you guess?

We don't need potable water for power cooling. Right?

Can you think of others...

Like...

People will die without enough water for drinking and crops, but we won't die if we don't have enough energy to power everyone's widescreen TV's and other luxuries.

Why are you guys making so much out of this?

This is the one area I have taken a 180 from my stance of no subsidies. can't you claim that as a victory, finding a topic i changed my mind on? I agree we can subsidize desalination plants, to keep water affordable. Nuff said.

[Drachen]

And the differences are...

Can you guess?

We don't need potable water for power cooling. Right?

Can you think of others...

Like...

People will die without enough water for drinking and crops, but we won't die if we don't have enough energy to power everyone's widescreen TV's and other luxuries.

Why are you guys making so much out of this?

This is the one area I have taken a 180 from my stance of no subsidies. can't you claim that as a victory, finding a topic i changed my mind on? I agree we can subsidize desalination plants, to keep water affordable. Nuff said.

Ok, first of all, the bolded part: I couldn't possibly give less of a fuck about claiming victory over you. You are just not that much of an important part of my life for this to even be a blip on the radar (and full disclosure: I would imagine that the opposite is also true)

Secondly, I can't believe that you cant get this point. I didn't say that potable water was necessary for cooling a power plant. Let me break this down for you:

Water = necessary for life
Electricity = necessary for water production/movement/treatment.

Expensive Electricity = Expensive Water = Expensive drinking/farming/etc

SOOOOO..... In order to keep water inexpensive for drinking/farming/etc. we have to bolster both our electrical and hydro infrastructure.


If you don't understand this, then you can claim victory over me. I can't make this any simpler, but am open to suggestions.

[CosmicCowboy]

Water is something the state and federal governments need to address more than other things in their political basketball game.

Instead of investing in green technology which we don't need government influence on, how about starting an infrastructure of desalination plants. Water is a national resource that we will continue to run short of, that will do this nation harm if we don't plan ahead. That is, unless we start making policies to make this nation a zero growth rate nation.

The US is rapidly getting there...by 2030 our population may even start shrinking.

[clambake]

The US is rapidly getting there...by 2030 our population may even start shrinking.

are you taking another shot at asians?

[CosmicCowboy]

are you taking another shot at asians?

I could. Our French guy really torched the famous Asian guy last night...:p:

[clambake]

I could. Our French guy really torched the famous Asian guy last night...:p:

:lol

[Wild Cobra]

SOOOOO..... In order to keep water inexpensive for drinking/farming/etc. we have to bolster both our electrical and hydro infrastructure.

No we don't. If the prices of electricity go higher, the demand well be reduced. If we subsidize electricity also, we will need even more of it, requiring even more of a subsidy to it. If we only subsidize the water, we can keep water prices reasonable. Part of the water subsidy can be because of the growing cost of electricity.

[RandomGuy]

RG, It appears to me you are going to the extreme, as if we were to run out. That isn't going to happen. We can build power plants as needed, but not natural resources. We may run extremely low on fossil fuels in the future, but we have other means of generation electricity. water as as a little different. We can't just make it rain more, as needed.

No, I was merely pointing out that our physical needs are more complex than what you were attempting to say. You oversimplify things far too much, and it is one of the worst flaws in your thinking about things and attempting to form sound policy decisions. Reality is rarely so accomodating as to have anything be so black and white.

We can have as much fresh water as we want though. All it takes is... enough electricity.

Yet another reason the government should be heavily investing in renewables that directly produce electricity.

[RandomGuy]

FWIW a couple of interesting tidbits:

How German Solar Has Made All German Electricity Cheaper

http://cleantechnica.com/2012/02/29/how-german-solar-has-made-all-german-electricity-cheaper/


The same effect would be seen in the U.S. Given our ability to form a continent wide grid, I am reasonbly sure we would see even more benefit.

Solar Cheaper Than Diesel Making India’s Mittal Believer: Energy
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-25/solar-cheaper-than-diesel-making-india-s-mittal-believer-energy.html

Germany Plans Record Cuts in Solar Subsidies to Limit Boom
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-23/germany-cuts-solar-energy-subsidies-to-curb-installations-boom.html

(read an article yesterday pointing out that German solar power is actually increasing the costs of coal plants, because their solar capacity is such that they have to take the coal plants offline, making them a lot less profitable, because they can't make revenue during that time)

[GSH]

FWIW a couple of interesting tidbits:

How German Solar Has Made All German Electricity Cheaper

http://cleantechnica.com/2012/02/29/how-german-solar-has-made-all-german-electricity-cheaper/


The same effect would be seen in the U.S. Given our ability to form a continent wide grid, I am reasonbly sure we would see even more benefit.

Solar Cheaper Than Diesel Making India’s Mittal Believer: Energy
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-25/solar-cheaper-than-diesel-making-india-s-mittal-believer-energy.html

Germany Plans Record Cuts in Solar Subsidies to Limit Boom
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-23/germany-cuts-solar-energy-subsidies-to-curb-installations-boom.html

(read an article yesterday pointing out that German solar power is actually increasing the costs of coal plants, because their solar capacity is such that they have to take the coal plants offline, making them a lot less profitable, because they can't make revenue during that time)


Do you ever really read this shit, or just the headlines? The Germans (along with other countries) reduced their subsidy of solar panels, and the demand went to shit. That resulted in a glut of panels on the market, which then got dumped at about 50% of their production cost. Which meant that electricity produced with those particular panels was cheaper than ever before. Hell, we could all produce solar electricity cheaper if someone would sell the panels at below production cost.

The people who write these articles know that those prices aren't indicative of the whole solar electricity market. And they know that those prices can't be replicated on a large scale, because the panels can't be obtained that cheaply. But that doesn't stop them from publishing their propaganda.

I'm all for alternative sources of energy. But I'm not all for bullshit stories that mislead people intentionally. If they have to lie to prove their point, it should be your first sign that something is wrong. It should also tell you something when demand goes to shit in the absence of subsidies that are too rich for the governments to pay for.

Of course, these stories never mention the amount of fossil fuel used in the production of the panels and mounting gear. They never mention the outrageous damage to the environment (in China) from the production of neodymium for wind turbines. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html They never mention that alternative-source power can be generated more cheaply in places like India, because they don't have to comply with all the environmental and other regulations we have in the U.S.

But, hey, ignorance is bliss.

[CosmicCowboy]

So where do you buy these cheap PV panels? I may just do this if I can buy them right...with the CPS rebate and the tax credit I could see a less than 5-10 year payout on the investment.

[RandomGuy]

Do you ever really read this shit, or just the headlines? The Germans (along with other countries) reduced their subsidy of solar panels, and the demand went to shit. That resulted in a glut of panels on the market, which then got dumped at about 50% of their production cost. Which meant that electricity produced with those particular panels was cheaper than ever before. Hell, we could all produce solar electricity cheaper if someone would sell the panels at below production cost.

The people who write these articles know that those prices aren't indicative of the whole solar electricity market. And they know that those prices can't be replicated on a large scale, because the panels can't be obtained that cheaply. But that doesn't stop them from publishing their propaganda.

I'm all for alternative sources of energy. But I'm not all for bullshit stories that mislead people intentionally. If they have to lie to prove their point, it should be your first sign that something is wrong. It should also tell you something when demand goes to shit in the absence of subsidies that are too rich for the governments to pay for.

Of course, these stories never mention the amount of fossil fuel used in the production of the panels and mounting gear. They never mention the outrageous damage to the environment (in China) from the production of neodymium for wind turbines. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html They never mention that alternative-source power can be generated more cheaply in places like India, because they don't have to comply with all the environmental and other regulations we have in the U.S.

But, hey, ignorance is bliss.

I do read them, and I fully, readily acknowledge the totality of costs involved with renewables, including the aspects of mining for materials mentioned.

The nastiness of mining for materials to manufacture and support renewables, when balanced against the constant need to mine coal, or extract oil/gas and all the inherent risks tends to favor renewables in my opinion. You can and should include the totality.

Also, FWIW:
Renewables have a huge advantage in India because of the rampant corruption and government red tape involved in coal production in that country.

As I have said before technology, manufacturing learning curves, and simple economies of scale are working to bring down the costs of renewables and this trend line has been going down for decades.

I see no reason that will change, do you?

[Winehole23]

...

[RandomGuy]

So where do you buy these cheap PV panels? I may just do this if I can buy them right...with the CPS rebate and the tax credit I could see a less than 5-10 year payout on the investment.

The interesting thing to consider about such things is that the returns actually follow that of inflation.

I am at the beginning of working out some NPV calculations with some real estimates from a PV company, and it is an interesting exercise.

Consider:

You buy a bond with an amount of money. The bond returns a constant coupon payment of 5% per year for the life of the bond.

or

You buy a PV system, whose savings (the cost of retail electricity) go UP with inflation of electricity.



The PV system looks pretty darn favorable in this comparison. Still refining it a bit, but that is my initial thought on the matter.

Given that I think demand for electricity will go up as new EV tech comes online, and gas prices go up, I think factoring in increases to electricity costs is a fair assumption.

[RandomGuy]

Do you ever really read this shit, or just the headlines? The Germans (along with other countries) reduced their subsidy of solar panels, and the demand went to shit. That resulted in a glut of panels on the market, which then got dumped at about 50% of their production cost. Which meant that electricity produced with those particular panels was cheaper than ever before. Hell, we could all produce solar electricity cheaper if someone would sell the panels at below production cost.



The Fraunhofer Institute found – as far back as 2007 – that as a result of the Merit Order ranking system – solar power had reduced the price of electricity on the EPEX exchange by 10 percent on the average, with reductions peaking at up to 40 percent in the early afternoon when the most solar power is generated.

Source: Clean Technica (http://s.tt/15Wjp)

That pre-dates the glut you are talking about. Did you actually read the article?

[RandomGuy]

Germany Plans Record Cuts in Solar Subsidies to Limit Boom

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-23/germany-cuts-solar-energy-subsidies-to-curb-installations-boom.html

Again a bit more information on how it is playing out in Germany.

[GSH]

That pre-dates the glut you are talking about. Did you actually read the article?


I did read the article. More to the point, I understood it.

Look - I think you might actually be a reasonable guy, and not an absolute fanatic. So I'm going to go to the trouble of writing some things that you might actually consider.

Do you know anything about the Merit Order Ranking System referenced in that snippet? I'm guessing you don't - and I'm not trying to offend when I say that. It gets (mis)used by Fraunhofer all the time. It has nothing to do with actual cost to produce electricity. Instead, it looks at short-run marginal costs.

One of the things you will find, is that under that system, wind energy has a marginal cost of zero. Hopefully you will understand what they were trying to say, with the ranking system. (Even though it was still slanted to achieve an outcome.) But for Fraunhofer to take that and use it as a representation of actual energy cost is beyond dishonest. In fact, because it gets used to lobby for subsidies, it borders on criminal.

You can say that once you have spent all the billions on wind turbines, the electricity they produce has a cost of zero. You can say that. But you would either be an idiot, or a liar. And that is what Fraunhofer did in that "study".

You and I might actually agree on a lot of stuff, Random. I'm really not an extremist. But I just have zero patience with the zealots who create or use these distorted studies. Let's use the real numbers. If they don't look good, then we know what we have to do to make it better.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Germany Plans Record Cuts in Solar Subsidies to Limit Boom

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-23/germany-cuts-solar-energy-subsidies-to-curb-installations-boom.html

Again a bit more information on how it is playing out in Germany.

So, in other words, the cut in subsidy was in response to a market bubble they didn't want to burst and not because they saw no inherent market interest without the subsidization?

A GSH narrative is full of shit? Who would've thunk it?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Do you know anything about the Merit Order Ranking System referenced in that snippet? I'm guessing you don't - and I'm not trying to offend when I say that. It gets (mis)used by Fraunhofer all the time. It has nothing to do with actual cost to produce electricity. Instead, it looks at short-run marginal costs.

One of the things you will find, is that under that system, wind energy has a marginal cost of zero. Hopefully you will understand what they were trying to say, with the ranking system. (Even though it was still slanted to achieve an outcome.) But for Fraunhofer to take that and use it as a representation of actual energy cost is beyond dishonest. In fact, because it gets used to lobby for subsidies, it borders on criminal.

After GSH's explanation of the movements of the German market, does anyone accept this similar poorly explained narrative at face value?

[GSH]

After GSH's explanation of the movements of the German market, does anyone accept this similar poorly explained narrative at face value?


I expect RandomGuy will be big enough to actually do some research. I would never try to explain anything to you, because you are one of those people who actually prefer to remain blissfully ignorant. The one thing I've learned is that you NEVER bring the goods - just ridiculous comments. I don't have any problem proving that what I said is true.

This comes from cleantechnica.dotcom, a group that is rabidly in favor of alternative energy sources (so you won't bother attacking the source):
Under the Merit Order ranking system for deciding which source to put on line first, all available sources of electrical generation are ranked by “marginal costs” (the additional cost of supplying one extra unit) – and the lowest marginal cost sources must be used first.
Source: Clean Technica (http://s.tt/15Wwg) ... Afternoon peaks used to be when German utilities could charge more for electricity supplied to the grid. But solar has changed all that – by having the lowest marginal costs (zero) at a time that coincides with its peak production.

If wind power really has a cost of zero, shouldn't it be free, or nearly so?

Like I said, the whole thing is a big fucking game. It has nothing to do with how much it actually costs to produce the electricity, and everything to do with trying to prove a point that doesn't exist.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So when RG actually tries to discuss the costs associated with developing alternative power, ie non-marginal costs, and is reasonable then why do you just repeat yourself?

Its kind of like vy and his transcripts of the court proceedings. You just repeat yourself. When you first came in here and accused everyone of trying to frame the discussion I knew right away that is exactly what you were going to try and do.

People see through it. So go ahead and label me as just some adversarial unreasonable jerk and repeat your initial arguments again.