Why I think Hydrocarbon Denial is little more than pseudoscience.

[RandomGuy]

Saying you believe "they are at the point where they need less and less in the way of intervention," could be construed as an assumption -- one for which Poptech rightly points out there is no support.

I guess it could be construed if you believe the words "I think" means "I assume".

But if you wish, here are some of the built in assumptions for the 2010 LEC costs, and you may find some of this familiar:


•Coal & Nuclear: The updated overnight capital cost estimates for coal and nuclear power plants are 25 to 37 percent above those in AEO2010. The higher cost estimates reflect many factors including the overall trend of rising costs of capital intensive technology in the power sector, higher global commodity prices, and the fact that there are relatively few construction firms with the ability to complete complex engineering projects such as a new nuclear or advanced coal power plant. The study assumes cost-sharing agreements between the project owner and the project construction contractors are reflective of those recently observed in the marketplace. As shown in Table 1, dual unit coal and nuclear plants generally have lower overnight costs per kilowatt than single-unit plants, reflecting their ability to take advantage of redundancies and scale economies in onsite infrastructure such as wastewater management and environmental controls to reduce the estimated total per-kilowatt cost of the project.
•Natural Gas: The updated cost estimates for natural gas combined cycle and combustion turbines generally remained similar to those of AEO2010

•Solar: The overnight capital costs for solar thermal and photovoltaic technologies dropped by 10 percent and 25 percent, respectively. The decrease in the cost of photovoltaics was due to the assumption of larger plant capacity and falling component costs.

•Onshore Wind: Overnight costs for onshore wind increased by about 21 percent relative to AEO 2010 assumptions. This is based on a specification for a new, stand-alone wind plant including all owners' costs and may differ from other reported costs in the literature, which are not fully characterized and may include sites that are built along side existing plants (and are thus able to avoid some amount of infrastructure costs).
•Offshore Wind: While offshore wind plants have been built in Europe, there have only been proposals in the United States, with final permitting only recently issued on the first of these proposals. The updated costs, some 50 percent higher than AEO 2010 estimates, are consistent with substantial first-of-a-kind costs that would likely be encountered when building projects in the United States, which largely lacks the unique infrastructure, needed to support this type of construction.

[RandomGuy]

Just as your assumption the water for extracting all the oil out west will be available -- there is no support for it.

Yes.

It is worth bearing in mind that the recent shale boom is possible in the US, because the US has some large deposits of shale energy that is particularly accessible to current technology.

The shale in the OP is not that kind of shale, and is similar in charactor to the types of formations seen in Europe, which is partly why there is no similar boom in Europe.

The West has increasingly tight water supplies, and this is a huge obstacle to getting at the energy noted in the GOA report. You could with enough energy/money overcome this, but by the time you do, other forms of energy will become far more cost-competitive.

That is *IF* you could get Westerners in the US to go along with the ecological damage that would be one of the not-inconsiderable by-products of strip-mining.

They might vote Libertarian or lean Republican in some ways, but threaten their mountains... they go Democrat real quick, in my experience.

[Yonivore]

I guess it could be construed if you believe the words "I think" means "I assume".
Actually, the words, "I think" means you assume there are factor existent that make your belief correct. That you think doesn't equal an assumption -- it's the factors that make you think so that are the assumption. Factors Poptech challenged are countered by current reality.

[Yonivore]

Yes.
The difference in our assumptions is the petroleum and coal industries (fossil fuel industries, if you will) have proven over the past century plus, they are innovative and can improvise solutions at a rate and on a scale not enjoyed by renewable or green energy proponents.

Two recent incidents come to mind.

1) The manner in which the deep sea well blowout was finally brought under control was proposed early on in the disaster but rejected by the government. Ultimately, it was what was used to stop the spill.

2) Some American mining engineer adapted his contraption to rescue those Chilean miners from certain death.

I put my money on the companies that know how to exploit our natural resources over those who continue to tinker with impractical PV panels and bird-killing propeller farms.

[RandomGuy]

* The costs of wind and solar are inaccurate as do not reflect the fact that they are intermittent and require standby power generation.

This is a very important consideration to power companies.

It is also an old assumption that is changing.

Car companies, laptop companies, cell phone companies, and utilities all are pushing the limits of battery technology.

There is a river of R & D money moving into this technology sector.

As we have noted here in this board, the Envia consortium has discovered a type due to bring costs down by more than half:
http://gizmodo.com/5889295/new-electric-car-battery-could-double-capacity-and-halve-cost


Other types of battery innovations are also on the immediate horizon:
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2012/03/23/graphene-battery-tech/1


while CLBattery is forging ahead with a commercial implementation, it's going to be a while before your laptop or smartphone sees the benefit. The company's first product built around the technology is designed for use in grid energy storage and electric vehicle applications

Related bit, not coverd above:

The upshot: laboratory tests showed that new batteries produced with this material could be rejuvenated to 50 percent of their maximum charge in less than 30 seconds. This was accomplished by replacing conventional graphite anodes with titanium nanotube andodes
http://www.engadget.com/2011/11/07/new-nanotube-battery-technology-leads-to-blisteringly-fast-recha/

The problems of storage and recharging for all sorts of applications are being overcome.

Even the DOD is getting into it.

As these battery technologies bring down costs, and infrasctructure investments are made, it increases the value of intermittant sources immensely.

Furthermore, large scale utility size battery banks offer some very important stability to powergrids. They can supply, instantly, load power to cover failures.

No other form of energy can do that, not even coal/gas, that have to be spun up, even from standby.

You can not assume that the problem of intermittancy will still be a problem in 10-20 years.

As I said, things are changing.

[RandomGuy]

Actually, the words, "I think" means you assume there are factor existent that make your belief correct. That you think doesn't equal an assumption -- it's the factors that make you think so that are the assumption. Factors Poptech challenged are countered by current reality.

I think you should go soak your head.


When you couple "I think" with "should", it is generally considered by most non-sophists to be an expression of opinion.

See how that works?

[Yonivore]

I think you should go soak your head.


When you couple "I think" with "should", it is generally considered by most non-sophists to be an expression of opinion.

See how that works?
Not the argument I was making.

That you "think" government subsidies "should" recede isn't borne out by the factual record (as demonstrated by Poptech) and, therefore, must be based on assumptions made by you.

Again, assumptions not supported by current reality.

[RandomGuy]

The difference in our assumptions is the petroleum and coal industries (fossil fuel industries, if you will) have proven over the past century plus, they are innovative and can improvise solutions at a rate and on a scale not enjoyed by renewable or green energy proponents.

Two recent incidents come to mind.

1) The manner in which the deep sea well blowout was finally brought under control was proposed early on in the disaster but rejected by the government. Ultimately, it was what was used to stop the spill.

2) Some American mining engineer adapted his contraption to rescue those Chilean miners from certain death.

I put my money on the companies that know how to exploit our natural resources over those who continue to tinker with impractical PV panels and bird-killing propeller farms.

I don't assume that they won't.

I assume they will find new reserves.

Based on how fields play out though, I assume costs will go up, quite markedly, as do the companies themselves, if you drill into their annual reports, and read what the people who know the business most say.

Output from several small to medium fields, requires more equipment (read: capital) than from one larger fields, for any given level of output/flow.

The larger a field is, the more likely it has been discovered already, and the odds that a new one will be found in the future go down.

Oil, coal, natgas, will have long flat tails because of this, and we will not see the civilization threatening collapse that some "peak oil" conspiracy theorists insist is around the corner.

Production prices will rise, limiting supply somewhat, and at the same time demand will increase from the developing world.

The price point, i.e. intersection of the two curves, will go up.

These higher prices will push the substitution effect, driving demand for things that either avoid the expense, or cheaper alternatives.

As infrastructure for rewewables gets built, you get a synergistic decline in prices, adding to technological advances, pushing up the supply curve, and driving prices/profits for renewable energy along with the rises in oil prices and profits for the oil companies.

These are all pretty broad trends, widely covered.

[Drachen]

you are arguing against "I think they are" when he said "I think they should"

[RandomGuy]

Not the argument I was making.

That you "think" government subsidies "should" recede isn't borne out by the factual record (as demonstrated by Poptech) and, therefore, must be based on assumptions made by you.

Again, assumptions not supported by current reality.

What will the subsidy rate be in 2020?

[Yonivore]

you are arguing against "I think they are" when he said "I think they should"
No.

"I think they are," should be supported with facts evident to all.

"I think they should," can be based on assumptions.

The argument is that his assumptions are evident in current reality.

Why make a big deal out of it?

[RandomGuy]

you are arguing against "I think they are" when he said "I think they should"

He is trying to make Poptech sound less foolish for misunderstanding me.

Go team. :rolleyes

Yoni is smarter than Poptech, and should know better.

[Yonivore]

What will the subsidy rate be in 2020?
Fuck if I know.

[Yonivore]

He is trying to make Poptech sound less foolish for misunderstanding me.

Go team. :rolleyes

Yoni is smarter than Poptech, and should know better.
I just have more faith in the fossil fuel industry to keep us in cheap fuel than the Solyndras of the the pie-in-the-sky left.

That's all.

Prove me wrong but, do it with someone else's money.

[ChumpDumper]

I just have more faith in the fossil fuel industry to keep us in cheap fuel than the Solyndras of the the pie-in-the-sky left.

That's all.

Prove me wrong but, do it with someone else's money.It's not like the oil industry doesn't use your money.

If you have an idea where they will get the water, post it.

[Yonivore]

It's not like the oil industry doesn't use your money.
Take their subsidies, as well. They'd do fine without them.


If you have an idea where they will get the water, post it.
I'm not a petrochemical engineer. They'll figure it out...there's a lot of water on this planet if, in fact, water is what is finally used.

[ChumpDumper]

Take their subsidies, as well. They'd do fine without them.Not according to them. Are you calling them liars?



I'm not a petrochemical engineer. They'll figure it out...there's a lot of water on this planet if, in fact, water is what is finally used.So your energy policy is faith based.

You're no different from a green energy backer.

[TeyshaBlue]

It's not like the oil industry doesn't use your money.

If you have an idea where they will get the water, post it.

"Prove me wrong but, do it with someone else's water.":lol

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao

[MannyIsGod]

"I have more faith..."

:lmao

When I point out the trends of the industries and the technologies it does not require faith. Its called proof.

[RandomGuy]

That you "think" government subsidies "should" recede isn't borne out by the factual record (as demonstrated by Poptech) and, therefore, must be based on assumptions made by you.

Again, assumptions not supported by current reality.


What will the subsidy rate be in 2020?


Fuck if I know.

Neither do I.

But, if "current reality" were as important to starting assumptions as you claim, you should know, right?

Let me state one final time, just so it is clear:


I think that subsidies for renewables should come down. This is what I want to happen.

I don't know what WILL happen, any more than you do.

I'm not making any predictions. Please stop trying to spin this any other way, as that was not in any sense what I meant.

Poptech read one thing, and it got shoved through his mental filters to be something else far different than what I meant.

Honestly, I get the feeling you are trolling me on this, as you like to do.

[RandomGuy]

I'm not a petrochemical engineer. They'll figure it out...there's a lot of water on this planet if, in fact, water is what is finally used.

Petrochemical engineers generally don't bother much with how to find water.

There are other types of geologists for that. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrology)

Your starting assumptions here don't match the current reality of petrochemical engineering.

[Yonivore]

We'll see which energy source is still around and cheapest in 10 to 20 years.

[TeyshaBlue]

You could've saved alot of time and face by just posting that statement.

[TeyshaBlue]

Oil reserves/royalties are the basis of my retirement...which pretty well guarantees that oil will be gone in 10 years.:depressed

[Yonivore]

Oil reserves/royalties are the basis of my retirement...which pretty well guarantees that oil will be gone in 10 years.:depressed
Sell and reinvest in renewables with Manny.

[Yonivore]

You could've saved alot of time and face by just posting that statement.
Is that what we're into around here? Efficiency? :lmao

[RandomGuy]

We'll see which energy source is still around and cheapest in 10 to 20 years.

Or you could just read the report from the people studying it and get a much better idea:



FWIW, I think the EIA got a lot of things right in their most recent assessment.
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/pdf/0383er(2012).pdf

I know in-depth reading on the topic isn't your thing, but I find it quite interesting.

They didn't conclude coal/oil/gas will go away, and neither do I.

The only thing that will really happen is that the world will change a bit, and renewables will make up a larger percentage of our energy supply than they do now.

I think the shift that will happen will be a bit more marked than they do, but their assessment is not entirely unreasonable, and quite thorough.

BTW, have you found any "hydrocarbon denial" yet? How would you define it?


Before you answer, can you provide me with any news articles about technology currently under development that will make the shale in the GAO report economical to extract?

I would appreciate it. Bear in mind that the shale formation is of a different charactor than those currently in the news. The technology unlocking Eagle Ford and the other large fields won't work there.

[Poptech]

I didn't really assume any reductions, if I recall correctly.
You made this incorrect assumption here (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5883995&postcount=47),

As has been pointed out here and elsewhere, those figures for subsidies have likely fallen substantially, as the installed capacity of both solar and wind has expanded markedly.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

New construction in TN, AZ, TX, etc were all being done at that point. $100m+ projects.

What is more expensive? Construction per annum or maintenance per annum?

[boutons_deux]

oil has 100 years of investment and an entire civilization built on it, Yoni and Pop Fuck taking the risky position of supporting it. We're Number One! :lol

solar and wind will make dent in oil for transport when batteries for vehicles allow it.

California, of course taking the lead, is going to vote on allowing people to buy electricity directly from solar/wind producers rather than from the electricity utilities, cutting out the middle man/markup.

I can't see oil-addicted TX Repugs EVER allowing solar and wind to challenge oil.

[boutons_deux]

"Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Keith Ellison launched a new piece of legislation that would repeal $113 billion of tax-breaks, handouts, and subsidies for the fossil fuel industry over the next 10 years.

Not only is fossil fuel the richest industry on earth, but any of us who pay taxes write it a hefty check each year. It’s as if we’re paying them a performance bonus for wrecking the climate. We’ll never get to renewable energy if we keep handing gobs of money to oil and coal and gas."

http://cleantechnica.com/2012/05/21/fossil-fuel-subsidies-to-cost-us-113000000000-in-next-10-years-not-including-climate-health-damage-without-change/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

$113B spent by taxpayers on carbon energy, $7T blown on MIC. Americans are fucking suckers, sheeple getting screwed all day, every day.

[boutons_deux]

"Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Keith Ellison launched a new piece of legislation that would repeal $113 billion of tax-breaks, handouts, and subsidies for the fossil fuel industry over the next 10 years.

Not only is fossil fuel the richest industry on earth, but any of us who pay taxes write it a hefty check each year. It’s as if we’re paying them a performance bonus for wrecking the climate. We’ll never get to renewable energy if we keep handing gobs of money to oil and coal and gas."

http://cleantechnica.com/2012/05/21/fossil-fuel-subsidies-to-cost-us-113000000000-in-next-10-years-not-including-climate-health-damage-without-change/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

$113B spent by taxpayers on carbon energy, $7T blown on MIC. Americans are fucking suckers, sheeple getting screwed all day, every day.

[Wild Cobra]

Why is everyone so worried about oil when water will be a near future real crisis?

[Drachen]

Why is everyone so worried about oil when water will be a near future real crisis?

well, if you can figure out energy then you can figure out water.

[TeyshaBlue]

oil has 100 years of investment and an entire civilization built on it, Yoni and Pop Fuck taking the risky position of supporting it. We're Number One! :lol

solar and wind will make dent in oil for transport when batteries for vehicles allow it.

California, of course taking the lead, is going to vote on allowing people to buy electricity directly from solar/wind producers rather than from the electricity utilities, cutting out the middle man/markup.

I can't see oil-addicted TX Repugs EVER allowing solar and wind to challenge oil.

You are aware that Texas is the nation's largest producer of wind energy, right?

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

[Yonivore]

You are aware that Texas is the nation's largest producer of wind energy, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Texas
And we're not making much of a dent in energy needs, either.

[TeyshaBlue]

6.9% of consumption and climbing.....not exactly insignificant

[boutons_deux]

You are aware that Texas is the nation's largest producer of wind energy, right?

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

get back to us when TX Repugs legislate time-of-day billing and feed-in tariffs statewide.

BigCoal and BigNuke owns the TX legislature, the two industries that suffer from solar/wind energy.

[Yonivore]

6.9% of consumption and climbing.....not exactly insignificant
From where does that figure come? All of sources I've seen say renewables make up between 8-12% of our sources of energy consumption with just less than half of that being from hydroelectric.

[TeyshaBlue]

get back to us when TX Repugs legislate time-of-day billing and feed-in tariffs statewide.

BigCoal and BigNuke owns the TX legislature, the two industries that suffer from solar/wind energy.

You are aware that Texas is the nation's largest producer of wind energy, right?

:rolleyes

[Drachen]

you are aware that texas is the nation's largest producer of wind energy, right?

:rolleyes

lol!

Aren't we also building the world's largest solar farm?

Not to say Oil isn't king in Texas, but it seems that oil's grip is relaxing.

[TeyshaBlue]

From where does that figure come? All of sources I've seen say renewables make up between 8-12% of our sources of energy consumption with just less than half of that being from hydroelectric.

http://www.awea.org/newsroom/pressreleases/Annual_Report.cfm

[TeyshaBlue]

lol!

Aren't we also building the world's largest solar farm?

Not to say Oil isn't king in Texas, but it seems that oil's grip is relaxing.

60 MW outside of Pflugerville. Might not be the world's largest, but it's right there.

http://www.earthtechling.com/2010/12/60-mw-solar-plant-set-for-outside-austin/

[Drachen]

60 MW outside of Pflugerville. Might not be the world's largest, but it's right there.

http://www.earthtechling.com/2010/12/60-mw-solar-plant-set-for-outside-austin/

Nope, San Antonio just started to build a 400 MW solar farm.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/living_green_sa/article/CPS-Energy-ratchets-up-investment-in-solar-1455605.php

This is a relatively old article, but the planning phase is now over, they are about to break ground.

here is a newer one:

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/energy/article/CPS-names-two-firms-in-mega-solar-project-2471016.php

[TeyshaBlue]

Holy Shit! That's massive. :tu
Man, BigOil and BigNuke must really be sleeping at their desks these days to allow that to happen.:lol

[Drachen]

Holy Shit! That's massive. :tu
Man, BigOil and BigNuke must really be sleeping at their desks these days to allow that to happen.:lol

Yep, it will be done by 2016, and is set to replace half of the output of two coal plants that they are retiring in 2018. The more I read about these things, the more I like living in San Antonio. It has many many problems, granted, but it is extremely progressive especially where it relates to the environment. Another example is that our per capita water usage is back to pre 1990 levels and is around a half (or 2/3, can't remember exactly) of what the national average is.

[TeyshaBlue]

I've always liked SA. Living in a river city is always challenging, but I do dig the vibe.

[RandomGuy]

I understood all the words I use.

I am not so sure.

You toss around a lot of accusations of logical fallacies without being able to really demonstrate them.

Either you can't do it, or you won't do it. I have begun to think the former.

[boutons_deux]

lol!

Aren't we also building the world's largest solar farm?

Not to say Oil isn't king in Texas, but it seems that oil's grip is relaxing.

Oil isn't used much in TX for electricity. It's coal and nuclear.

[boutons_deux]

Arctic Melt Releasing Ancient Methane

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/60347000/jpg/_60347192_arcticlake.jpg

Scientists have identified thousands of sites in the Arctic where methane that has been stored for many millennia is bubbling into the atmosphere.

The methane has been trapped by ice, but is able to escape as the ice melts.

Writing in the journal Nature Geoscience, the researchers say this ancient gas could have a significant impact on climate change.

Methane is the second most important greenhouse gas after CO2 and levels are rising after a few years of stability.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18120093

then add in all the methane, etc being released by tar sands mining and fracking, we're accelerating the problem. tipping point.

[RandomGuy]

You made this incorrect assumption here (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5883995&postcount=47),

(sighs)

You presented a 2007 figure for expenditures per generated mWh.

I said (in 2012) that the recent jump in installations has likely caused that to fall.

You then presented a 2010 figure for expenditutes per generated mWh.

There was a huge spike in spending in 2009 and 2010, tapering off in 2011 and 2012, to my understanding, although I said I didn't have the exact figures at hand at the moment, that is based on what I remember reading through a lot of reports.

2011 was a record year for both PV and wind installation, and 2012 is expected to beat that.

Your calculations continue to be meaningless.

You can quibble over what you think I said or meant all you want.

If I make a mistake, I will be more than willing to admit it, and do so.

Are you going to admit your calcuations about the generated mWh are meaningless?

I will point out the rather important note to that table:


For the same reason, electricity subsidies for solar and wind show a relatively large subsidy per unit of production, as these groups account for less than 1 percent of total net generation in the country. It is important to recognize that the subsidies-per-megawatthour calculations are a snapshot taken at a particular point in time. Some electricity sources, such as nuclear, coal, oil, and natural gas, have received varying levels of subsidies and support in the past which may have aided them in reaching their current role in electricity production

Balance sheets make good snapshots in time, but without income statements, lose a lot of context.

I have begun doing, in the last year or so, some rather in depth LEC and NPV analysis on various real world projects that I can find to get at the real underlying figures in the issue.

It is interesting seeing how sensitive the equations are to the starting assumptions in the variables, although I have not had the time to really formalize much yet.

FWIW, I generally do not factor in carbon taxes or CO2 imputed damages, even though I think the latter is very reasonable, given the current state of scientific consensus. Yeah, I went there.

Even without these, the 30-50 year LECs for coal and PV are getting closer. I would guess that for the optimal wind locations, wind probably beats coal, after the initial transmission infrastructure investment is made.

Oddly enough, solar panels on a house make for some pretty good investments to an individual, and have NPV characteristics similar to inflation adjusted bonds.

[RandomGuy]

From where does that figure come? All of sources I've seen say renewables make up between 8-12% of our sources of energy consumption with just less than half of that being from hydroelectric.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=195&pictureid=1700

FWIW, as of 2010.

This is what they think is going to happen by the way.

I think coal is going to drop off a bit more than they project, as the 3-4 bn people in Asia and Africa move up the energy consumption curve, and increasingly start driving the demand for it beyond what can be supplied quickly.

[RandomGuy]

Arctic Melt Releasing Ancient Methane

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/60347000/jpg/_60347192_arcticlake.jpg

Scientists have identified thousands of sites in the Arctic where methane that has been stored for many millennia is bubbling into the atmosphere.

The methane has been trapped by ice, but is able to escape as the ice melts.

Writing in the journal Nature Geoscience, the researchers say this ancient gas could have a significant impact on climate change.

Methane is the second most important greenhouse gas after CO2 and levels are rising after a few years of stability.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18120093

then add in all the methane, etc being released by tar sands mining and fracking, we're accelerating the problem. tipping point.

Fracking's Methane Trail: A Detective Story
http://www.npr.org/2012/05/17/151545578/frackings-methane-trail-a-detective-story


"What the official estimates are based on generally are not so many measurements, but rather estimates," says Greg Frost, an atmospheric scientist and air pollution expert for NOAA. "They really are based on maybe a measurement here or there, but then they're largely based on extrapolation. So in other words, you make a measurement in one place or for one particular source, and you do a complicated calculation to assess what does that mean across a whole region, across 20,000 wells?"

A Revealing Tower

A tall tower at the foot of the Rocky Mountains tipped off scientists that these estimates are poor substitutes for measuring.


Sick From Fracking? Doctors, Patients Seek Answers


Kay Allen had just started work, and everything seemed quiet at the Cornerstone Care community health clinic in Burgettstown, Pa. But things didn't stay quiet for long.

"All the girls, they were yelling at me in the back, 'You gotta come out here quick. You gotta come out here quick,' " said Allen, 59, a nurse from Weirton, W.Va.

Allen rushed out front and knew right away what all the yelling was about. The whole place reeked — like someone had spilled a giant bottle of nail polish remover.

"I told everybody to get outside and get fresh air. So we went outside. And Aggie said, 'Kay, I'm going to be sick.' But before I get in, to get something for her to throw up in, she had to go over the railing," she said.

Nothing like this had ever happened in the 20 years that Allen has been at the clinic. After about 45 minutes, she thought the coast was clear and took everyone back inside.

"It was fine. But the next thing you know, they're calling me again. There was another gust. Well, the one girl, Miranda, she was sitting at the registration place, and you could tell she'd had too much of it. And Miranda got overcome by that and she passed out," she said.
http://www.npr.org/2012/05/15/152268475/sick-from-fracking-doctors-patients-seek-answers


The second one is a lot more concerning.

The industry says that the chemicals it uses don't get into water tables, but if you are cracking rock formations, and the volatile (in the chemical sense) chemicals start mixing in with the methane and other hydrocarbons being released, those gases will percolate up through the water table.

I think we need to start pumping a lot of money into studying this, and quickly, before we get too much father along on this production boom, and do things we can't easily take back or fix.

[RandomGuy]

http://bnef.com/PressReleases/view/173

http://bnef.com/bnef/wp-content/themes/bnef_theme/img/bnef-logo.png


Geographically, Europe will remain one of the biggest markets for money spent on renewable energy projects for the next three years, but with a dwindling share of world investment as European Union governments scale back clean energy support in the face of sovereign debt problems. Growth in the European market will resume post 2015 as investment scales up to meet the EU 2020 renewable energy target.

China will take over the lead in renewable energy asset finance from Europe in 2014, with an annual spend of just under $50bn . The US and Canada are also expected to see no lasting slowdown in project construction, together hitting $50bn of investment in 2020.

The most rapid growth will be seen in the rapidly developing economies of India, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America, with projected growth rates of 10-18% per year over the period 2010 to 2020.

With regard to technologies, cost reductions will spur deployment of solar power, which will undergo the second-fastest percentage growth of all technologies (after offshore wind) from 51GW in 2010 to 1,137GW by 2030. This will require significant capital – an annual average of $130bn over 2010-30 compared with $86bn in 2010.


Guy Turner, director of commodity market research at Bloomberg New Energy Finance, said: “These results indicate that last year's record renewable energy investment was no one-off despite the recent economic gloom. Big winners over the next 20 years will be the emerging renewable energy hubs in Latin America, Asia, the Middle East and Africa – by 2020 the markets outside of the EU, US, Canada and China will account for 50% of global annual investment in renewable energy capacity.”

FWIW, more data.

Not that I think that certain people posting in this thread are going to read it...

One can always hope.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=195&pictureid=1701
"Re-considering the economics of photovoltaic power, Bazilian et al. (2012) "
(drawn from the white papers at bloomberg energy finance unit:
http://bnef.com/free-publications/white-papers/ )

Note the reductions are in a logorythmic scale, on the Y axis.


The PV industry has seen unprecedented declines in module prices since the second half of 2008. Yet, awareness of the current economics of solar power lags among many commentators, policy makers, energy users and even utilities. The reasons are numerous and include: the very rapid pace of PV price reductions, the persistence of out-of-date data in information still being disseminated (occasionally by those with an interest in clouding the discussion), the misconceptions and ambiguity surrounding many of the metrics and concepts commonly used in the PV industry, and ambiguities regarding underlying PV costs due to the numerous policy support measures that have been put in place over the last decade.

As I have said, the world is changing.

[TeyshaBlue]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=195&pictureid=1701
"Re-considering the economics of photovoltaic power, Bazilian et al. (2012) "
(drawn from the white papers at bloomberg energy finance unit:
http://bnef.com/free-publications/white-papers/ )

Note the reductions are in a logorythmic scale, on the Y axis.



As I have said, the world is changing.

Math/Grammar Nazi: logarithmic

[TeyshaBlue]

:lol

[TeyshaBlue]

I think alot of the price pressure of PV is entirely speculative..ie, we have no idea the range of import levies that can/will be implemented as the Chinese continue to undercut global production/pricing.

[RandomGuy]

Nope, San Antonio just started to build a 400 MW solar farm.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/living_green_sa/article/CPS-Energy-ratchets-up-investment-in-solar-1455605.php

This is a relatively old article, but the planning phase is now over, they are about to break ground.

here is a newer one:

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/energy/article/CPS-names-two-firms-in-mega-solar-project-2471016.php

Texas is well situated for PV installation.

The quote from Tom Smith brings up a good point about things like PV, in that it is hard to (as the whitepaper noted above) directly compare different energy forms.

When considering things like PV, in terms of comparing costs/benefits, one generally should compare PV to the highest avoided peak-usage. Comparing it directly to online coal doesn't really capture the value of the electricity that PV produces, as you need to include a time dimension to get meaningful analysis.

I think we will see a pretty strong spike in PV installations in any market where you have a utility institute peak charges. Having "smart grids" that measure this is a good way to get the ball rolling.

This method of pricing the electricity closer to what it actually costs, adds a lot of "return" on PV for homeowners.

[RandomGuy]

I think alot of the price pressure of PV is entirely speculative..ie, we have no idea the range of import levies that can/will be implemented as the Chinese continue to undercut global production/pricing.

If the Chinese goverment wants to subsidize our electricity, that is fine by me. :D

Module glut will clear up eventually, and shake out the marginal manufacturers.

Tech will keep driving the costs down though.

If cheap modules drive job creation through installation here, it becomes hard to measure the impact.

Hard to say what impact any potential levies might have, other than I imagine they would be fairly temporary, and certainly not affect global trends overmuch.

[RandomGuy]

Math/Grammar Nazi: logarithmic

Noted. Web browser has no spell check. That is only one of my spelling foibles. :depressed

[TeyshaBlue]

lol...my spell checker = *Query* ((Does it look funny?)):lol

[Drachen]

Texas is well situated for PV installation.

The quote from Tom Smith brings up a good point about things like PV, in that it is hard to (as the whitepaper noted above) directly compare different energy forms.

When considering things like PV, in terms of comparing costs/benefits, one generally should compare PV to the highest avoided peak-usage. Comparing it directly to online coal doesn't really capture the value of the electricity that PV produces, as you need to include a time dimension to get meaningful analysis.

I think we will see a pretty strong spike in PV installations in any market where you have a utility institute peak charges. Having "smart grids" that measure this is a good way to get the ball rolling.

This method of pricing the electricity closer to what it actually costs, adds a lot of "return" on PV for homeowners.

I think CPS is in the beginning phases of this smart grid/smart meter installation. I am getting into this home manager program where you can track how much electricity your major appliances use (A/C, heater, as well as another category for "the rest") and adjust your thermostat, etc over the internet. This is something different from the free programmable thermostat deal (which I became a part of in 2008).

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are aware that Texas is the nation's largest producer of wind energy, right?

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

The solar farm in Austin is currently the largest operational in the US. The one being built outside SA will be the largest once finished.

[boutons_deux]

big farms are fine, but why not a few million commmercial/residential rooftops, parking lots selling juice to the utilities?

[TeyshaBlue]

big farms are fine, but why not a few million commmercial/residential rooftops, parking lots selling juice to the utilities?

Up front expense, most likely.

[Drachen]

Up front expense, most likely.

that and plus rooftop solar is being encouraged... They are doing both.

[boutons_deux]

federal tax breaks for residential solar are good until 2016

CPS energy has a limited program of rebates.

but feed-in tariffs are what really spike the distributued solar implementation combined with a premium for electricity in peak hours (helps amortize the investment which itself returns most electricity in peak hours)

CPS energy gives only $0.02 credit per Kw for excess and sells it for about $0.11.

CPS would rather blow $10Bs on more nuclear deliverable in 10 years for peak loads rather than buy solar from its clients.

[Drachen]

federal tax breaks for residential solar are good until 2016

CPS energy has a limited program of rebates.

but feed-in tariffs are what really spike the distributued solar implementation combined with a premium for electricity in peak hours (helps amortize the investment which itself returns most electricity in peak hours)

CPS energy gives only $0.02 credit per Kw for excess and sells it for about $0.11.

CPS would rather blow $10Bs on more nuclear deliverable in 10 years for peak loads rather than buy solar from its clients.

Don't worry, that is over.

[RandomGuy]

Building Wind Energy Can Save Midwestern Consumers $200 Per Year (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/22/488495/building-wind-energy-can-save-midwestern-consumers-200-per-year/)


In sum, this study indicates that adding more wind power to the grid in MISO [Midwestern grid-RG], above and beyond what will be enabled by the MVP portfolio, would result in the continual decline of energy market prices and lead to lower electric rates for ratepayers (relative to rates in a less windy electrical landscape)—even when you factor in the costs of additional transmission.


We draw the following conclusions from our analysis:
· Ongoing installation of wind energy across the MISO grid over the next two decades will continually and inexorably put downward price pressure on market energy prices. The price suppression effect will be material, and will be pervasive.
· Anticipating that any level of wind increase and coal retirement scenario will still lead to sufficient capacity reserves on the grid, the price effect is seen to persist and be material under a range of coal retirement / gas addition circumstances.
· If gas prices rise above the Energy Information Administration’s current Annual Energy Outlook real price projections for 2020 and 2030, the price suppression effect from wind will be greater. Similarly, this effect will be magnified under scenarios with large coal retirement, since gas-fired generation is likely to be on the margin for a greater share of market-price-setting intervals.
· Transmission increases that accompany wind additions will continue to minimize price differentials across the region (i.e., lower congestion costs) and allow the presence of wind energy to affect clearing prices throughout the MISO region.
To the extent that transmission additions allow for capture of the highest valued wind resources, lower total investment in wind capacity will be required to achieve the effects seen in this analysis.



Build infrastructure, get economic synergy.

Pretty much what governments should be in the business of doing and subsidizing, IMO.

Let China suck up coal to feed their power plants. (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-05-17/china-coal-imports-rise-90-percent-in-april-coal-association-says)



Export This!

As I wrote last year, almost 15 percent of all globally-traded coal ends up in China. That figure is expected to rise even further. Meanwhile, the U.S. has little interest in expanding its coal-fired power generation, but we're also the world leader in coal reserves.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where I'm going with this...

We already know that a half-billion-dollar marine terminal in Bellingham, Washington, will soon be the destination for at least nine coal-filled freight trains that'll run back and forth daily from Wyoming and Montana. And while there is certainly plenty of opposition, I fully expect to see this thing go through.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/606981-coal-investment-opportunities

New Chinese demand will increase Powder River basin coal demand.

US coal plants will be facing new competition from Chinese consumers of electricity, (China gets roughly 80% or so of its power from coal, BTW), just as US consumers of oil are facing a bidding war with their Chinese counterparts already.

There are articles about brownouts in China, despite the frenetic pace of power plant contruction. (http://english.caixin.com/2011-05-24/100262562.html)

This trend of increasing Chinese coal demand will continue. To some extent they can get some of their demand from Mongolia, but they will continue to import it from all over.

Haven't even gotten to India and Africa yet, BTW.

[RandomGuy]

Up front expense, most likely.

Until you get leasing companies that will build it at no cost to the owner, which is happening already.

When you build a new plant, you lock yourself into a fuel source for 30-50 years.

The Chinese are locking themselves into coal, as are the Indians to some extent.

It doesn't take a genyus to see where this is going, although I think the Chinese will have to scale back their coal plant construction markedly, when the true health costs to their national productivity start sinking in.

[TeyshaBlue]

Until you get leasing companies that will build it at no cost to the owner, which is happening already.

When you build a new plant, you lock yourself into a fuel source for 30-50 years.

The Chinese are locking themselves into coal, as are the Indians to some extent.

It doesn't take a genyus to see where this is going, although I think the Chinese will have to scale back their coal plant construction markedly, when the true health costs to their national productivity start sinking in.

Stop baiting me.:lol

Yeah, I'm encouraged by the emerging lease deals although I remain somewhat skeptical of the backend insurance liabilities. I'd would certainly be willing to look into it if it were offered in my area. My roof is friggin huge.

[CosmicCowboy]

I checked it out. As far as I am concerned financially it's a push even with the federal and CPS rebates. Plus CPS funded the first round with stimulus money and is trying to figure out how to fund a continuing program.

[Wild Cobra]

Solar is probably a good investment for the southern states, as the usage is more in line with air conditioning usage for load needs. Not so usable in places that need more heating in the winter than cooling in the summer.

Still....

I say no subsidies. No tax breaks. Let the product pay it's own way.

[RandomGuy]

Solar is probably a good investment for the southern states, as the usage is more in line with air conditioning usage for load needs. Not so usable in places that need more heating in the winter than cooling in the summer.

Still....

I say no subsidies. No tax breaks. Let the product pay it's own way.

I agree, and so do many in the industry.

What I do want is an incubation period, that has a definite end, in which there are subsidies and infrastructure investments to get the industry on its feet.

I would point out that wind in the winter balances a lack of solar. The two compliment each other well.

[RandomGuy]

I was never able to read your mind, this is correct. If you stated your argument sooner I could have refuted it for you immediately so you did not have to go through two days of falsely believing you made a relevant point. :lmao

"Look at how much the government is spending on future power generation! I divided by the spending on future power generation by this years total generation of power."

That is, in essence, what you said.

Your number is meaningless, unless you could break it down into how much installed capacity went in.

Even then, you really need an NPV value to get anything really worth while, simply because the patterns of the cash flows is so divergent between forms.


Let's break out all the spending in 2010 on future generation we will call it "X", and divide that by the amount of power generated in 2010 by those planned projects, and not constructed in the year the funds were allocated:


X/0

Is this operation going to get you a relevant bit of data to decide on the ultimate efficacy of the investment?

[Drachen]

"Look at how much the government is spending on future power generation! I divided by the spending on future power generation by this years total generation of power."

That is, in essence, what you said.

Your number is meaningless, unless you could break it down into how much installed capacity went in.

Even then, you really need an NPV value to get anything really worth while, simply because the patterns of the cash flows is so divergent between forms.


Let's break out all the spending in 2010 on future generation we will call it "X", and divide that by the amount of power generated in 2010 by those planned projects, and not constructed in the year the funds were allocated:


X/0

Is this operation going to get you a relevant bit of data to decide on the ultimate efficacy of the investment?

For every number I sub for "X" my calculator tells me "E" do I need a better calculator?

[TeyshaBlue]

I checked it out. As far as I am concerned financially it's a push even with the federal and CPS rebates. Plus CPS funded the first round with stimulus money and is trying to figure out how to fund a continuing program.

Did you get a whiff of the insurance piece?

[TeyshaBlue]

For every number I sub for "X" my calculator tells me "E" do I need a better calculator?

n00b!

[boutons_deux]

U.S. Coal Generation Drops 19 Percent In One Year, Leaving Coal With 36 Percent Share Of Electricity

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Screen-shot-2012-05-14-at-7.39.06-AM.png

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/14/483432/us-coal-generation-drops-19-percent-in-one-year-leaving-coal-with-36-percent-share-of-electricity/

Will the US govt stop BigCoal from ripping up USA to ship coal (usa natural resource often mined from US taxpayer-owned property) overseas?

See recent battles on NW Pacific coast for coal export seaport.

[boutons_deux]

Manmade Pollutants May Be Driving Earth’s Tropical Belt Expansion And Subtropical Dust-Bowlification

Climate science has long predicted an expansion of the tropical belt (colored band in figure below), which we’re now observing. At the same time, also as predicted, the subtropical dry zones are shifting poleward and getting drier (see for instance, this study and this one). And that means more “Dust-Bowlification,” which is a grave threat to food security. This observed expansion is happening faster than the climate models projected. A new study in Nature (subs. req’d) offers one possible explanation for this. What follows is a news release on the study.

by Iqbal Pittalwala, via UCR Today

Black carbon aerosols and tropospheric ozone, both manmade pollutants emitted predominantly in the Northern Hemisphere’s low- to mid-latitudes, are most likely pushing the boundary of the tropics further poleward in that hemisphere, new research by a team of scientists shows.

While stratospheric ozone depletion has already been shown to be the primary driver of the expansion of the tropics in the Southern Hemisphere, the researchers are the first to report that black carbon and tropospheric ozone are the most likely primary drivers of the tropical expansion observed in the Northern Hemisphere.

Led by climatologist Robert J. Allen, an assistant professor of Earth sciences at the University of California, Riverside, the research team notes that an unabated tropical belt expansion would impact large-scale atmospheric circulation, especially in the subtropics and mid-latitudes.

“If the tropics are moving poleward, then the subtropics will become even drier,” Allen said. “If a poleward displacement of the mid-latitude storm tracks also occurs, this will shift mid-latitude precipitation poleward, impacting regional agriculture, economy, and society.”

Study results appear in the May 17 issue of Nature.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/22/486604/manmade-pollutants-may-be-driving-earths-tropical-belt-expansion-and-subtropical-dust-bowlification/

[boutons_deux]

If you listen only to the propaganda machine of the Koch Brothers, the power companies and the "clean coal" industry, solar power is only desirable to a white rich ex-hippie with a Malibu beach house.

Their latest tactic is to paint local clean energy, such as rooftop solar, as an elitist energy source that low-income Californians and people of color are subsidizing.

A 2011 poll by the Public Policy Institute of California found that 79% of Asians, 83% of Blacks and 88% Latinos think that climate change is a serious threat to the economy and their quality of life. That same poll found that people of color believe more strongly than the general population that it is necessary to take steps immediately to counter the effects of climate change. People of color are the strongest supporters of a clean energy and climate change fighting agenda in California.

When it's done right, low-income Californians and people of color have more to gain from the widespread adoption of local clean energy than anyone else. The more solar power that comes online, the faster we will be able to turn off the dirtiest power plants -- "peaker" plants -- which are the most polluting, least efficient and most expensive source of power we have.?

Most "peaker" plants are located in our poorest communities. If there are subsidies that need to end, it's the subsidies to dirty energy producers and the heavy price poor Californians pay with their health as a result of last century's pollution based power system.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/van-jones/net-metering-solar_b_1537713.html?ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=052312&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BlogEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief

[RandomGuy]

I do no such thing, nor do I skim anything. So far your assumption about subsidies being reduced has been found to be based on bullshit and so has your argument for levelized costs,

http://www.instituteforenergyresehttp://www.instituteforenergyresearch.orgarch.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/Levelized-Cost-2016-600px.png

2016 Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources from the Annual Energy Outlook 2011 (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity_generation.html) ([i]EIA)


* The costs of wind and solar are inaccurate as do not reflect the fact that they are intermittent and require standby power generation.

* The coal numbers are imaginary as they are inflated for CO2 regulations that do not exist,


Oh wait, you did not think I researched this too? :lmao



Researched, yes. Kept current, no. Nor, it seems, have you done some appropriate critical thinking.

Your table from 2010, showing LEC costs based on 2009 prices, has had a few key assumptions change.

Partially:



Increased generation from renewable energy in the electric power sector, excluding hydropower, accounts for 33 percent of the overall growth in electricity generation from 2010 to 2035. Generation from renewable resources grows in response to Federal tax credits, State-level policies, and Federal requirements to use more biomass-based transportation fuels, some of which can produce electricity as a byproduct of the production process. Near-term market growth in some sectors, such as solar energy, is projected to result in significantly reduced costs in the AEO2012 Reference case, increasing the projected growth for those resources as compared with the AEO2011 projections. More retirements of coal-fired capacity are expected in the AEO2012 Reference case than were projected in AEO2011 because of slower growth in electricity demand, continued competition from natural gas and renewable plants, and the need to comply with new environmental regulations. Growth in renewable generation is supported by many State requirements, as well as new regulations on CO2 emissions in California. The share of U.S. electricity generation coming from renewable fuels (including conventional hydropower) grows from 10 percent in 2010 to 16 percent in 2035. In the AEO2012 Reference case, Federal subsidies for renewable generation are assumed to expire as enacted. Extensions of such subsidies could have a large impact on renewable generation.

If one bothers to look, the 2035 projections for the cost of coal went up. The 2010 and 2011 projections for the costs of coal were both far too low. I can't imagine why.

If anybody cares to look, PopTech's "research" appears to include, based on the revealing URL for his happy fun graph, the "www.instituteforenergyresearch.org" , a website with a rather decided bias. Shocker.

Read through the Institutes "Hard-Facts" report in 2012, and the ultimate source that is telling PopTech what his opinion is, becomes clear.

PopTech has swallowed a line of propaganda, hook, line, and sinker, without doing the critical thinking necessary when viewing obviously biased source material.

[RandomGuy]

If you listen only to the propaganda machine of the Koch Brothers, the power companies and the "clean coal" industry, solar power is only desirable to a white rich ex-hippie with a Malibu beach house.

Their latest tactic is to paint local clean energy, such as rooftop solar, as an elitist energy source that low-income Californians and people of color are subsidizing.

A 2011 poll by the Public Policy Institute of California found that 79% of Asians, 83% of Blacks and 88% Latinos think that climate change is a serious threat to the economy and their quality of life. That same poll found that people of color believe more strongly than the general population that it is necessary to take steps immediately to counter the effects of climate change. People of color are the strongest supporters of a clean energy and climate change fighting agenda in California.

When it's done right, low-income Californians and people of color have more to gain from the widespread adoption of local clean energy than anyone else. The more solar power that comes online, the faster we will be able to turn off the dirtiest power plants -- "peaker" plants -- which are the most polluting, least efficient and most expensive source of power we have.?

Most "peaker" plants are located in our poorest communities. If there are subsidies that need to end, it's the subsidies to dirty energy producers and the heavy price poor Californians pay with their health as a result of last century's pollution based power system.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/van-jones/net-metering-solar_b_1537713.html?ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=052312&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BlogEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief

Pretty much. Coal and other forms of fuel burning power have benefitted historically from the ability to shift the true costs of their product onto others, i.e. "negative externalities". "Nevermind this toxic soup of coal ash, or the arsenic in the mine trailings", etc. This is, in effect, a huge hidden subsidy, that you won't find anywhere.

When you force theses costs back on them, they scream bloody murder and tell you ad nauseum how "unfair" it is.

[Poptech]

Researched, yes. Kept current, no. Nor, it seems, have you done some appropriate critical thinking.

Your table from 2010, showing LEC costs based on 2009 prices, has had a few key assumptions change.
I am dealing with reality not your future fantasies. The irrefutable fact is that Coal and Natural Gas are the two cheapest forms of electrical generation.


If anybody cares to look, PopTech's "research" appears to include, based on the revealing URL for his happy fun graph, the "www.instituteforenergyresearch.org" , a website with a rather decided bias.
Thanks for demonstrating you are incompetent at doing research. That is the same exact chart from the EIA,

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/Levelized-Cost-2016-600px.png

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/images/elcngr_tbl1.jpg

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


Read through the Institutes "Hard-Facts" report in 2012, and the ultimate source that is telling PopTech what his opinion is, becomes clear.

PopTech has swallowed a line of propaganda, hook, line, and sinker, without doing the critical thinking necessary when viewing obviously biased source material.
The IER's Energy Primer is excellent and all of their facts are fully cited and sourced. There is no propaganda just inconvenient truths,

Hard Facts: An Energy Primer (http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/hardfacts-uploads/NJI_IER_HardFacts_ALLpages_20120509_v9.pdf) (PDF) (68pgs) (Institute for Energy Research, 2012)

[RandomGuy]

The irrefutable fact is that Coal and Natural Gas are the two cheapest forms of electrical generation.

You didn't read the notes to those tables, did you?

[RandomGuy]

I am dealing with reality not your future fantasies.


"Look at how much the government is spending on future power generation! I divided by the spending on future power generation by this years total generation of power."

That is, in essence, what you said.

Your number is meaningless, unless you could break it down into how much installed capacity went in.

Even then, you really need an NPV value to get anything really worth while, simply because the patterns of the cash flows is so divergent between forms.


Let's break out all the spending in 2010 on future generation we will call it "X", and divide that by the amount of power generated in 2010 by those planned projects, and not constructed in the year the funds were allocated:


X/0

Is this operation going to get you a relevant bit of data to decide on the ultimate efficacy of the investment?

[RandomGuy]

That is the same exact chart from the EIA,

I understand that, goober.

What you missed is that it represents a very selective presentation of data. THat is what propaganda does, and a good critical thinker should recognize when it is being done, as you did not. I will get to that in a bit.

[RandomGuy]

I am dealing with reality not your future fantasies. The irrefutable fact is that Coal and Natural Gas are the two cheapest forms of electrical generation.

Thanks for demonstrating you are incompetent at doing research. That is the same exact chart from the EIA,...

You stopped at the first graph.

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/images/elcngr_tbl2.jpg

Let's examine regional variances, since no utility operates on a national average.

Tell me, according to this table, what is the minimum LEC cost for:

conventional coal based on 2009 prices per mWh?

For wind?

[RandomGuy]

I also spent several posts outlining a recent run up in coal demand, from China, and why this demand will likely cause price pressures on coal going forward, especially after the west coast coal exporting facility is completed.

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/pdf/0383er(2012).pdf

The EIA's 2012 reference cases have incorporated this, among other things, into their overall reference cases.

Their projected coal prices for 2025, seen on page 12

"Domestic coal at minemouth"
(dollars per short ton)

$33.51

$43.87
When you do those LEC's, and you have long tailed assumptions for fuel, you can't rely on 2009 data to make decisions about what to build in 2012 or 2015.

Would you would recommend to a utility company CEO that he rely on 2009 prices, Poptech?

[Poptech]

The wind costs are bogus and the coal costs inflated based on imaginary nonsense, here is the real levelized costs,

Federal Tax Policy Towards Energy (http://web.mit.edu/globalchange/www/MITJPSPGC_Rpt142.pdf) (PDF) (pg. 22) (Gilbert E. Metcalf, Ph.D. Professor of Economics, MIT)

Real Levelized Costs of Electricity:

$3.79 Conventional Coal
$4.37 Clean Coal
$5.61 Natural Gas
$5.94 Nuclear
$6.64 Wind
$18.82 Solar Thermal
$37.39 Solar Photovoltaic


Is this what you would recommend to a utility company CEO, Poptech?
I would always recommend the most economically viable sources of electrical generation, coal and natural gas.

Why would I lie to a utility company CEO about emotional energy sources like Wind?

Wind Energy: The Truth Blows (http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm/5623/Wind-Energy-The-Truth-Blows) (Energy Tribune, October 20, 2010)

[RandomGuy]

The wind costs are bogus and the coal costs inflated based on imaginary nonsense, here is the real levelized costs,

Federal Tax Policy Towards Energy (http://web.mit.edu/globalchange/www/MITJPSPGC_Rpt142.pdf) (PDF) (pg. 22) (Gilbert E. Metcalf, Ph.D. Professor of Economics, MIT)

Real Levelized Costs of Electricity:

$3.79 Conventional Coal
$4.37 Clean Coal
$5.61 Natural Gas
$5.94 Nuclear
$6.64 Wind
$18.82 Solar Thermal
$37.39 Solar Photovoltaic


I would always recommend the most economically viable sources of electrical generation - coal and natural gas.

So, the EIA tables were good enough for you before, but not good enough to answer my question?

[Poptech]

Do you support killing birds? Is this the new green?

na6HxKQQsAM

Enviro Group Sues Wind Farm to Stop Bird Deaths (http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=14562) (The Heartland Institute, March 1, 2004)
Coastal wind farm would destroy bird haven say protesters (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1468373/Coastal-wind-farm-would-destroy-bird-haven-say-protesters.html) (The Daily Telegraph, UK, August 1, 2004)
Wind Turbines Taking Toll on Birds of Prey (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-01-04-windmills-usat_x.htm) (USA Today, January 4, 2005)
Wind Farm 'Hits Eagle Numbers' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5108666.stm) (BBC, June 23, 2006)
Sea Eagles Being Killed by Wind Turbines (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/3298513/Sea-eagles-being-killed-by-wind-turbines.html) (The Daily Telegraph, UK, June 27, 2007)
Rare Bird Killed By Wide Turbine (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/6287932.stm) (BBC, July 10, 2007)
Wind Turbines Hazardous to Birds, Bats (http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Science/2007/11/12/wind_turbines_hazardous_to_birds_bats/6992/) (UPI, November 12, 2007)
Eagles Killed By Wind Farm Blades (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1508992/Eagles-killed-by-wind-farm-blades.html) (The Daily Telegraph, UK, January 6, 2008)
Wind Farm Threat to Bird Species (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/cumbria/7252621.stm) (BBC, February 19, 2008)
Wind Farms May Threaten Whooping Cranes (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-02-28-1558183910_x.htm) (USA Today, February 28, 2008)
Altamont Pass Settlement Fails to Reduce Bird Kills (http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22774) (The Heartland Institute, March 1, 2008)
Windmills slaughter endangered birds (http://www.modbee.com/opinion/community/story/400870.html) (The Modesto Bee, August 21, 2008)
Bird Kills? What Bird Kills? (http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=2294) (Energy Tribune, September 11, 2009)
Bird deaths present problem at wind farms (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/2009-09-21-wind-farms_N.htm) (USA Today, September 22, 2009)
Wind power might blow a hole in bird populations (http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/02/opinion/oe-fry2) (L.A. Times, November 2, 2009)
Bird Deaths from Wind Farms to Continue Under New Federal Voluntary Industry Guidelines (http://www.abcbirds.org/newsandreports/releases/110208.html) (American Bird Conservancy, February 8, 2011)
The green killer: Scores of protected golden eagles dying after colliding with wind turbines (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394945/The-green-killer-Scores-protected-golden-eagles-dying-colliding-wind-turbines.html) (Daily Mail, UK, June 6, 2011)
Dead Birds Unintended Consequence of Wind Power Development (http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/08/16/energy-in-america-dead-birds-unintended-consequence-wind-power-development/) (Fox News, August 16, 2011)
Wind farms under fire for bird kills (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/wind-farms-under-fire-for-bird-kills/2011/08/25/gIQAP0bVlJ_story.html) (The Washington Post, August 28, 2011)
Massive Bird Kill at West Virginia Wind Farm Highlights National Issue (http://www.abcbirds.org/newsandreports/releases/111028.html) (American Bird Conservancy, October 28, 2011)
Wind turbines threaten swans, says bird expert (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/story/2012/02/21/wdr-tundra-swans-wind-turbines-lambton.html) (CBC News, February 21, 2012)
Eagle deaths investigated at LADWP wind power generation site (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2011/08/an-investigation-has-been-launched-into-the-deaths-of-migratory-birds-including-several-federally-protected-golden-eagles-at.html) (L.A. Times, April 2, 2011)
Windfarms: bird mortality cover-up in the UK (http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/?page_id=906) (Save the Eagles International, April 16, 2012)
Lawsuit says wind energy industry hurts condors (http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_20457235/lawsuit-says-wind-energy-industry-hurts-condors) (Mercury News, April 22, 2012)

[RandomGuy]

The wind costs are bogus and the coal costs inflated based on imaginary nonsense, here is the real levelized costs,

Federal Tax Policy Towards Energy (http://web.mit.edu/globalchange/www/MITJPSPGC_Rpt142.pdf) (PDF) (pg. 22) (Gilbert E. Metcalf, Ph.D. Professor of Economics, MIT)

Real Levelized Costs of Electricity:

$3.79 Conventional Coal
$4.37 Clean Coal
$5.61 Natural Gas
$5.94 Nuclear
$6.64 Wind
$18.82 Solar Thermal
$37.39 Solar Photovoltaic



That is a paper from 2007, with data based on 2006 prices for most things and 2004 or older for others, and even older than the other table you posted.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=212&pictureid=1467

So you want a utility company CEO to make decisions in 2012 based on your 2007 data now?

[RandomGuy]

Do you support killing birds?


Fuck yeah. Gimmie the electricity.

You are ignoring my questions. Why is that?

[RandomGuy]

The irrefutable fact is that Coal and Natural Gas are the two cheapest forms of electrical generation.


You stopped at the first graph.

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/images/elcngr_tbl2.jpg

Let's examine regional variances, since no utility operates on a national average.

Tell me, according to this table, what is the minimum LEC cost for:

conventional coal based on 2009 prices per mWh?

For wind?

[Poptech]

That is 2007 data, and even older than the other one.
It properly calculates in real costs not imaginary ones.


You are ignoring my questions. Why is that?
I am not ignoring anything. The EIA's Coal numbers are ridiculously inflated which they explicitly admit,


However, in the AEO2011 reference case a 3-percentage point increase in the cost of capital is added when evaluating investments in greenhouse gas (GHG) intensive technologies like coal-fired power and coal-to-liquids (CTL) plants without carbon control and sequestration (CCS). While the 3-percentage point adjustment is somewhat arbitrary, in levelized cost terms its impact is similar to that of a $15 per metric ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions fee when investing in a new coal plant without CCS, similar to the costs used in simulations that utilities and regulators have used in their resource planning. The adjustment should not be seen as an increase in the actual cost of financing, but rather as representing the implicit hurdle being added to GHG-intensive projects to account for the possibility they may eventually have to purchase allowances or invest in other GHG emission-reducing projects that offset their emissions. As a result, the levelized capital costs of coal-fired plants without CCS are higher than would otherwise be expected.

My point for using the EIA was to show that even the government has determined Solar to be worthless and using bogus numbers they are attempting to make Wind look much better than it actually is and Coal worse than it is.

[Poptech]

Do you support killing birds?
Fuck yeah. Gimmie the electricity.
Here is a timeless quote.

[RandomGuy]

Coal prices, 2007 from the eia:

http://205.254.135.7/coal/data.cfm#prices

24.65 price in 2005 dollars for a short on of coal in the US.

Same table gives the price in 2010 at 32.20

http://205.254.135.7/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/sec7_21.pdf

[RandomGuy]

I am dealing with reality not your future fantasies. The irrefutable fact is that Coal and Natural Gas are the two cheapest forms of electrical generation.

Thanks for demonstrating you are incompetent at doing research. That is the same exact chart from the EIA,...

You stopped at the first graph.

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/images/elcngr_tbl2.jpg

Let's examine regional variances, since no utility operates on a national average.

Tell me, according to this table, what is the minimum LEC cost for:

conventional coal based on 2009 prices per mWh?

For wind?



I am not ignoring anything. The EIA's Coal numbers are ridiculously inflated which they explicitly admit.

If you had bothered to read the notes, they also gave a "no GHG concern" case, where the 3% capital cost you base this statement on is removed.

85.5/1.03 = 83 dollars for coal. POOOF the "gross inflation" is removed.


Which is higher genyus, 83 or 81.9?

[Poptech]

I see we are back to big boy fonts,

Do the EIA's levelized costs factor in stand-by power generation for wind and solar?

Do they factor in a level playing field removing government tax distortions to give accurate numbers?

Do they arbitrarily inflate coal's levelized costs?

[RandomGuy]

The wind costs are bogus and the coal costs inflated based on imaginary nonsense, here is the real levelized costs,

Federal Tax Policy Towards Energy (http://web.mit.edu/globalchange/www/MITJPSPGC_Rpt142.pdf) (PDF) (pg. 22) (Gilbert E. Metcalf, Ph.D. Professor of Economics, MIT)

Real Levelized Costs of Electricity:

$3.79 Conventional Coal
$4.37 Clean Coal
$5.61 Natural Gas
$5.94 Nuclear
$6.64 Wind
$18.82 Solar Thermal
$37.39 Solar Photovoltaic


I would always recommend the most economically viable sources of electrical generation, coal and natural gas.

Why would I lie to a utility company CEO about emotional energy sources like Wind?

Wind Energy: The Truth Blows (http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm/5623/Wind-Energy-The-Truth-Blows) (Energy Tribune, October 20, 2010)

The professor's selected capacity factor for PV was 21, and this has changed due to advances in PV efficiency. The accepted 2011 baseline the EIA used was 25.

Given this and the reductions in module costs in the intervening years, it would seem that your table here is still dated.

What effect would these chages have on the data you have presented?

[RandomGuy]

I see we are back to big boy fonts,

Do the EIA's levelized costs factor in stand-by power generation for wind and solar?

Do they factor in a level playing field removing government tax distortions to give accurate numbers?

Do they arbitrarily inflate coal's levelized costs?

(nah)

[Poptech]

I cannot find the EIA's calculation for stand-by power generation for wind and solar in their levelized costs. They at least admit to arbitrarily distorting coal's numbers.

[Poptech]

The professor's selected capacity factor for PV was 21, and this has changed due to advances in PV efficiency. The accepted 2011 baseline the EIA used was 25.

Given this and the reductions in module costs in the intervening years, it would seem that your table here is still dated.
Use either table, Solar is not economically viable and only a source of emotional energy.

[RandomGuy]

I see we are back to big boy fonts,

Do the EIA's levelized costs factor in stand-by power generation for wind and solar?

You tell me. You are good at research.

(you might want to re-visit some of what I said about battery technology, and the advances being pushed there as well)

[RandomGuy]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=195&pictureid=1701
"Re-considering the economics of photovoltaic power, Bazilian et al. (2012) "
(drawn from the white papers at bloomberg energy finance unit:
http://bnef.com/free-publications/white-papers/ )

Note the reductions are in a logorythmic scale, on the Y axis.


The PV industry has seen unprecedented declines in module prices since the second half of 2008. Yet, awareness of the current economics of solar power lags among many commentators, policy makers, energy users and even utilities. The reasons are numerous and include: the very rapid pace of PV price reductions, the persistence of out-of-date data in information still being disseminated (occasionally by those with an interest in clouding the discussion), the misconceptions and ambiguity surrounding many of the metrics and concepts commonly used in the PV industry, and ambiguities regarding underlying PV costs due to the numerous policy support measures that have been put in place over the last decade.

As I have said, the world is changing.

[RandomGuy]

Use either table, Solar is not economically viable and only a source of emotional energy.

That wasn't what I asked, sophist.

[Poptech]

Irrefutable fact: (Using either table) Solar is not economically viable and only a source of emotional energy.

[RandomGuy]

I cannot find the EIA's calculation for stand-by power generation for wind and solar in their levelized costs.

Clever bait. Sorry, not biting.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Every time I see him write 'irrefutable' I only see 'I have aspergers so my brain cannot interpret anything as anything other than absolutes.'

[RandomGuy]

Irrefutable fact: (Using either table) Solar is not economically viable and only a source of emotional energy.

Meh.

You got owned by your own words, sophist.

So much for admitting you make mistakes. :lmao

[RandomGuy]

Irrefutable fact: (Using either table) Solar is not economically viable and only a source of emotional energy.

That isn't what I asked, sophist.

If you don't want to answer an honest fair question, just say so.

[Poptech]

That isn't what I asked, sophist.

If you don't want to answer an honest fair question, just say so.
What you asked is based on inaccurate information. Try and keep up sophist,

Do the EIA's levelized costs factor in stand-by power generation for wind and solar?

Do they factor in a level playing field removing government tax distortions to give accurate numbers?

Do they arbitrarily inflate coal's levelized costs?

All I am is honest and fair.

[RandomGuy]

Do the EIA's levelized costs factor in stand-by power generation for wind and solar?

You do realize solar thermal can produce power 24 hours a day, right?

[RandomGuy]

All I am is honest and fair.

:lmao

[RandomGuy]

I am dealing with reality not your future fantasies. The irrefutable fact is that Coal and Natural Gas are the two cheapest forms of electrical generation.

Thanks for demonstrating you are incompetent at doing research. That is the same exact chart from the EIA,...

You stopped at the first graph.

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/images/elcngr_tbl2.jpg

Let's examine regional variances, since no utility operates on a national average.

Tell me, according to this table, what is the minimum LEC cost for:

conventional coal based on 2009 prices per mWh?

For wind?

[Poptech]

You do realize solar thermal can produce power 24 hours a day, right?
Producing power 24-hours a day and producing continuous base-load power are two different things.

[Poptech]

You stopped at the first graph.
Sophist, please keep up,

Do the EIA's levelized costs factor in stand-by power generation for wind and solar?

Do they factor in a level playing field removing government tax distortions to give accurate numbers?

Do they arbitrarily inflate coal's levelized costs?

[RandomGuy]

What you asked is based on inaccurate information.

So the good professors figures for solar PV are based on module prices 5+ times more expensive than today, with lower capacity factors, and the PV "economic" life he selected was from a 2004 study of only 20 years.

Most PV analysis indicates that PV panel lives stretch to 30 years, and quite possibly as long as 50.

All of which strongly implies the need to revisit the table don't you think?

Sorry, the world changed.

[RandomGuy]

Sophist, please keep up,

Do the EIA's levelized costs factor in stand-by power generation for wind and solar?

Do they factor in a level playing field removing government tax distortions to give accurate numbers?

Do they arbitrarily inflate coal's levelized costs?

Meh, bed time.

Quickly:

No. Neither do they need to, for reasons that have already been explained to you.

No. You used the wrong column from the 2007 report based on erroneous 2004 information anyway.

No. You don't get to define arbitary, sorry.

[RandomGuy]

Producing power 24-hours a day and producing continuous base-load power are two different things.

Meh, by the same token, PV is a "peaker" power source for most of the hot southwest.

You can't simply dirctly compare these sources in the way you want to.

Astonishingly enough, it is more complex than your attempts at simplifying things allows for.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Astonishingly enough, it is more complex than your attempts at simplifying things allows for.

Beckons one of my favorite quotes:


A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.

[Wild Cobra]

I agree,
Oh Shit!!!

Am I maybe wrong then?

and so do many in the industry.

It just seems practical this way. The more perpendicular your location on earth is to the sun, the more energy you have per unit area.


What I do want is an incubation period, that has a definite end, in which there are subsidies and infrastructure investments to get the industry on its feet.

If there is an advantage to build these, then it simply isn't needed. What we have is the law makers loving to hold the power they have. On the flip side, we have industry holding out for the free money they know the lawmakers will give them with the right sweet talking. This should stop. If it is a worthwhile investment, industry will build it with no free money.


I would point out that wind in the winter balances a lack of solar. The two compliment each other well.

I simply don't like wind power. I haven't seen enough to convince me it's a worthwhile investment. I think solar is a great idea though.

[RandomGuy]

I was never able to read your mind, this is correct. If you stated your argument sooner I could have refuted it for you immediately so you did not have to go through two days of falsely believing you made a relevant point. :lmao

"Look at how much the government is spending on future power generation! I divided by the spending on future power generation by this years total generation of power."

That is, in essence, what you said.

Your number is meaningless, unless you could break it down into how much installed capacity went in.

Even then, you really need an NPV value to get anything really worth while, simply because the patterns of the cash flows is so divergent between forms.


Let's break out all the spending in 2010 on future generation we will call it "X", and divide that by the amount of power generated in 2010 by those planned projects, and not constructed in the year the funds were allocated:


X/0

Is this operation going to get you a relevant bit of data to decide on the ultimate efficacy of the investment?

[RandomGuy]

I simply don't like wind power. I haven't seen enough to convince me it's a worthwhile investment.

Building Wind Energy Can Save Midwestern Consumers $200 Per Year (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/22/488495/building-wind-energy-can-save-midwestern-consumers-200-per-year/)

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/images/elcngr_tbl2.jpg

Let's examine regional variances, since no utility operates on a national average.

According to this table, what is the minimum LEC cost for:

conventional coal based on 2009 prices per mWh?

For wind?

---------------------------------------


That is for starters. There are some VERY windy places in the US onshore, and once you build the transmission to the wind corridors, the marginal costs drop considerably, this is already being done.

Further, the intermittancy problems that PoopDeck is hanging his rhetorical hat on, are compensated by the same infrastructure investments. It is always windy somewhere, and as you get more capacity built, and more interconnection between grids in the continental US, you get the ability to move power from where it is being generated to where it is not.

The cost savings from the first link stems from avoided costs for fuel.

Wind is, overall, cheaper than solar in terms of energy provided per dollar spent.

[RandomGuy]

Sophist, please keep up,

Do the EIA's levelized costs factor in stand-by power generation for wind and solar?

Since we are in the question asking game, here is one for you:

When does solar produce the most energy?

[RandomGuy]

Sophist, please keep up,

Next question:

Your preferred data table, from the good professor at MIT used data to construct his LEC table from the 2006 EIA outlook.

The EIA has recently examined its track record for predictions.

Below is a link showing how well their predictions about coal prices, including 2006, has done.

From the 2006 line, how much off was their prediction of coal prices in 2010?

http://205.254.135.7/forecasts/aeo/retrospective/pdf/table_11b.pdf

(for those following along, the green parts of the bottom table are the parts where they wildly underestimated future prices)

[RandomGuy]

Now let's play the economics supply and demand game.

Coal and natural gas prices are lower in the US than world prices, generally.

The primary reason for this disparity is global prices for this is new demand in Asia, as this new demand has been pushing up the price point (i.e. intersection of supply and demand curves) for these two commodities relative to global supply.

US producers of coal and natural gas, are currently limited by their ability to export their products to the places where these commodities are most in demand, this means they have to accept lower prices for their product from the primary consumers of their products in the US, i.e. utilities.

Currently we are building natgas (LNG) export facilities. (http://www.lngworldnews.com/congressman-boustany-says-sempra-lng-terminal-signals-bright-future-for-south-louisiana-usa/)

At the same time, there are proposals underway to build new coal export facilities in the pacific northwest. (http://www.sightline.org/research/energy/coal/coal-FAQ.pdf)

The LNG project is a bit easier to get through politically, but I think we can assume that at least one, if not more coal export facilities will get built, and the Canadian port facility will have its capacity upgraded, from what I have read.

US coal and natgas producers will then be able to sell their products to the highest bidders worldwide.

What does this imply for future coal/gas prices to US consumers of coal and natural gas?

[RandomGuy]

So let's get a running score card of questions posed to PopTech, that he has not answered so far, and to be fair, he hasn't has much of a chance to answer some of them.



1) What does this imply for future coal/gas prices to US consumers of coal and natural gas? (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5907864&postcount=380)

2) From the 2006 line, how much off was their prediction of coal prices in 2010? (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5907850&postcount=379)

3) When does solar produce the most energy? (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5907847&postcount=378)

4) X/0

Is this operation going to get you a relevant bit of data to decide on the ultimate efficacy of the investment? (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5907843&postcount=376)

5) What affect would this have on the data you presented? (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5907377&postcount=353)

6) Can current methods profitably extract the oil from the formation noted in the article of the OP? (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5910491&postcount=386)

7) Tell me, according to this table, what is the minimum LEC cost for:

conventional coal based on 2009 prices per mWh?

For wind? (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5907328&postcount=347)

8) If a scientist expresses a belief that a non-scientific theory has the same credibility as a scientific one, does that indicate one should assign more or less credibility to that scientist overall? (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5911481&postcount=240)

[Drachen]

So I am confused, are you supposed to run a business based on current data/projections, or are you supposed to run a business on older (3+ year old) numbers? and if so, do you think that myspace would be a good buy right now?

[RandomGuy]

So I am confused, are you supposed to run a business based on current data/projections, or are you supposed to run a business on older (3+ year old) numbers? and if so, do you think that myspace would be a good buy right now?

Well, here is another interesting tidbit, from 2012:

Analysis: Shale energy boom dangles prospect of leap in economic growth (http://news.yahoo.com/analysis-shale-energy-boom-dangles-prospect-leap-economic-150336434--business.html)

Notable:


TRUCKING AND PLASTICS

Natural gas from shale deposits is already reshaping the long-haul trucking industry. Truck stops around the nation are adding tanks of super-cooled natural gas, known as LNG, because it is substantially cheaper than diesel.

"When we call up trucking companies now, it's one of the first things they ask about," said Jimmy Haslam, CEO of Pilot Flying J, one of the country's largest truck stop chains.

Trucking moves roughly three-quarters of American freight, so lower transportation costs will reverberate throughout the economy, attracting investment, freeing up capital for new projects and increasing corporate profits.

Natural gas provider Clean Energy is partnering with Pilot Flying J to add LNG tanks at over 100 truck stops by the end of next year to allow coast-to-coast refueling.


And over time, the U.S. will likely lose its energy cost advantage from shale as other countries tap their deposits. China and Argentina, for instance, are thought to have vast reserves. But they are far behind in developing their fields, giving the U.S. a clear running start.

"They can eventually do it. It's just going to take some time," said Verleger.

Companies in America now are paying just above $2.50 per million British thermal units for natural gas, roughly a quarter of what is paid in Europe and an even smaller fraction of the cost in Asia. As long as that lasts, the U.S. economy has an edge in benefiting from the energy boom.

This will keep the decline of coal in powering US power plants, as companies facing the retirment of aging coal power plants decide that natgas is the way to go.

This will push natgas demand, as will the LNG terminals. US prices will get closer to world prices.


Some data on the aging coal power plant fleet:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Existing_U.S._Coal_Plants
About a 1/3 of the capacity is older than I am. (1969 or older)

More on retirements:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coal_plant_retirements

These plants will be replaced with natgas and renewables.

As this happens, the line between "transportation" energy and "electrical" energy will blur, since those long haul truckers will be burning the same fuel as the natgas power plants.

Add in the EVs that will become increasingly economical from the battery tech under development, and the line gets blurrier still. Easier to substitute goods.

[RandomGuy]

http://community.middlebury.edu/~scs/Maps%20and%20images/china-oil%20imports.gif

China was a net exporter of oil in 1993.

They have recently become the #2 oil importer in the world, behind the US. Most projections have them importing more oil than the US within 15 years.

Within about 5 years, China and India together will import more oil than the US, and their economies will continue to grow faster than ours.

This rise in oil demand will push all other energy costs higher.

Substitution will push trucking companies even further to natgas, more demand for that, and less for oil.

Tar sand companies will be sucking some serious wind at that point, as their really expensive per unit production costs bite them in the ass.

[RandomGuy]

The professor's selected capacity factor for PV was 21, and this has changed due to advances in PV efficiency. The accepted 2011 baseline the EIA used was 25.

Given this and the reductions in module costs in the intervening years, it would seem that your table here is still dated.

What effect would these chages have on the data you have presented?

Never did get this answered either.

[RandomGuy]

There is nothing magical about "Hydraulic Fracking" it is a market based solution to rising energy prices.

Can current methods profitably extract the oil from the formation noted in the article of the OP?

[RandomGuy]

So let's get a running score card of questions posed to PopTech, that he has not answered so far, and to be fair, he hasn't has much of a chance to answer most of them.



1) What does this imply for future coal/gas prices to US consumers of coal and natural gas? (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5907864&postcount=380)

2) From the 2006 line, how much off was their prediction of coal prices in 2010? (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5907850&postcount=379)

3) When does solar produce the most energy? (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5907847&postcount=378)

4) X/0

Is this operation going to get you a relevant bit of data to decide on the ultimate efficacy of the investment? (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5907843&postcount=376)

5) What affect would this have on the data you presented? (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5907377&postcount=353)

6) Can current methods profitably extract the oil from the formation noted in the article of the OP? (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5910491&postcount=386)

I wonder how long this list is going to get. Can't fault the man for not having the time to get to everything, but at some point one will have to wonder why they are not being answered.

[RandomGuy]

FWIW that is two PT log ins without answering any of those questions.

[boutons_deux]

Here's the kind of aggressive alternative energy policy we very probably won't see in TX for a long time, if ever. TX Repugs are too busy with tax expenditures for carbon industries, and their highly effective War on Women, on public schools, war on science, war on rationality and history, war on the poor, just about everybody in the 99%.

Utility regulators more than double California's solar power goal

SACRAMENTO — California is poised to more than double its targeted electricity output from rooftop solar panels.

The state Public Utilities Commission on Thursday tweaked its rules to authorize an increase in the number of residential, commercial and government buildings that can participate in a program that allows solar users to lower their electricity bills by getting credit for excess power sent back to the grid.

The move raises the maximum total capacity of all the state's rooftop solar systems to about 5,200 megawatts from a current 2,400 megawatts. That's enough new electricity to power about 2.1 million homes.

Proponents said the PUC's 5-0 decision would ensure that California would remain the nation's leader in solar power. The state's solar industry employs more than 25,000 workers and has raised more than $10 billion in private investment, they said.

http://mobile.latimes.com/p.p?m=b&a=rp&id=2174797&postId=2174797&postUserId=7&sessionToken=&catId=6220&curAbsIndex=0&resultsUrl=DID%3D6%26DFCL%3D1000%26DSB%3Drank%2523 desc%26DBFQ%3DuserId%253A7%26DL.w%3D%26DL.d%3D10%2 6DQ%3DsectionId%253A6220%26DPS%3D0%26DPL%3D3

[RandomGuy]

So let's get a running score card of questions posed to PopTech, that he has not answered so far, and to be fair, he hasn't has much of a chance to answer most of them.



1) What does this imply for future coal/gas prices to US consumers of coal and natural gas? (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5907864&postcount=380)

2) From the 2006 line, how much off was their prediction of coal prices in 2010? (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5907850&postcount=379)

3) When does solar produce the most energy? (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5907847&postcount=378)

4) X/0

Is this operation going to get you a relevant bit of data to decide on the ultimate efficacy of the investment? (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5907843&postcount=376)

5) What affect would this have on the data you presented? (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5907377&postcount=353)

6) Can current methods profitably extract the oil from the formation noted in the article of the OP? (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5910491&postcount=386)

7) Tell me, according to this table, what is the minimum LEC cost for:

conventional coal based on 2009 prices per mWh?

For wind? (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5907328&postcount=347)

The list keeps getting longer. #7 is one he has had a few days to answer.

[RandomGuy]

Here's the kind of aggressive alternative energy policy we very probably won't see in TX for a long time, if ever. TX Repugs are too busy with tax expenditures for carbon industries, and their highly effective War on Women, on public schools, war on science, war on rationality and history, war on the poor, just about everybody in the 99%.

Utility regulators more than double California's solar power goal

SACRAMENTO — California is poised to more than double its targeted electricity output from rooftop solar panels.

The state Public Utilities Commission on Thursday tweaked its rules to authorize an increase in the number of residential, commercial and government buildings that can participate in a program that allows solar users to lower their electricity bills by getting credit for excess power sent back to the grid.

The move raises the maximum total capacity of all the state's rooftop solar systems to about 5,200 megawatts from a current 2,400 megawatts. That's enough new electricity to power about 2.1 million homes.

Proponents said the PUC's 5-0 decision would ensure that California would remain the nation's leader in solar power. The state's solar industry employs more than 25,000 workers and has raised more than $10 billion in private investment, they said.

http://mobile.latimes.com/p.p?m=b&a=rp&id=2174797&postId=2174797&postUserId=7&sessionToken=&catId=6220&curAbsIndex=0&resultsUrl=DID%3D6%26DFCL%3D1000%26DSB%3Drank%2523 desc%26DBFQ%3DuserId%253A7%26DL.w%3D%26DL.d%3D10%2 6DQ%3DsectionId%253A6220%26DPS%3D0%26DPL%3D3

There is a concept in economics that concerns industrial centers.

Basically, when you get a large industry presence in an area, you accumulate a pool of talent and capital that is hard to replicate elsewhere.

Silicon Valley is one example, Boeing's complex is another.

California is well situated to take advantage of both wind and solar, and the investments in both will probably pay good dividends as it has to import less and less coal from other states to produce electricity.

If it achieves a critical mass of research and talent with renewables, it will have an decided advantage as that industry gets bigger.

[Drachen]

Here's the kind of aggressive alternative energy policy we very probably won't see in TX for a long time, if ever. TX Repugs are too busy with tax expenditures for carbon industries, and their highly effective War on Women, on public schools, war on science, war on rationality and history, war on the poor, just about everybody in the 99%.

Utility regulators more than double California's solar power goal

SACRAMENTO — California is poised to more than double its targeted electricity output from rooftop solar panels.

The state Public Utilities Commission on Thursday tweaked its rules to authorize an increase in the number of residential, commercial and government buildings that can participate in a program that allows solar users to lower their electricity bills by getting credit for excess power sent back to the grid.

The move raises the maximum total capacity of all the state's rooftop solar systems to about 5,200 megawatts from a current 2,400 megawatts. That's enough new electricity to power about 2.1 million homes.

Proponents said the PUC's 5-0 decision would ensure that California would remain the nation's leader in solar power. The state's solar industry employs more than 25,000 workers and has raised more than $10 billion in private investment, they said.

http://mobile.latimes.com/p.p?m=b&a=rp&id=2174797&postId=2174797&postUserId=7&sessionToken=&catId=6220&curAbsIndex=0&resultsUrl=DID%3D6%26DFCL%3D1000%26DSB%3Drank%2523 desc%26DBFQ%3DuserId%253A7%26DL.w%3D%26DL.d%3D10%2 6DQ%3DsectionId%253A6220%26DPS%3D0%26DPL%3D3

I guess this doesn't fit your narrative, but texas (currently) has more total installed capacity of wind and solar than california will have AFTER they hit that goal (and it isn't even close). This doesn't even include the solar plant in austin or the new san antonio plant that will start construction soon. Texas has FAR more installed MW/capita than does california.

There are a lot of things that you can attack texas for, try to stick to the things that hold water.

[RandomGuy]

I guess this doesn't fit your narrative, but texas (currently) has more total installed capacity of wind and solar than california will have AFTER they hit that goal (and it isn't even close). This doesn't even include the solar plant in austin or the new san antonio plant that will start construction soon. Texas has FAR more installed MW/capita than does california.

There are a lot of things that you can attack texas for, try to stick to the things that hold water.

If you notice here:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Existing_U.S._Coal_Plants

Texas generates more coal power than any other state. Most of that comes from old plants.

Current projected retirements represent about 14% of the coal electric capacity.

This will be replaced with natgas (the LNG terminal in Louisiana is right on the border of Texas, supplied by Eagle ford) , solar and wind.

If one looks, Texas' coast is a good place to start, and the solar capacity is also pretty good. Most of the peak power generation from such solar plants looks attractive as a replacement as well.

Wind map
http://windeis.anl.gov/guide/maps/map2.html

Solar map
http://www.ecotechnousa.com/EcoTechnoNews/DidYouKnow/tabid/68/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/6/Solar-Myth-4.aspx

Texas also has its own grid, which helps in planning.

Also, Texas has faced some pretty severe droughts and water right fights that have made companies that operate plants requiring water for their boilers nervous. Yet another potential variable cost that will likely get expensive.

[Drachen]

If you notice here:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Existing_U.S._Coal_Plants

Texas generates more coal power than any other state. Most of that comes from old plants.

Current projected retirements represent about 14% of the coal electric capacity.

This will be replaced with natgas (the LNG terminal in Louisiana is right on the border of Texas, supplied by Eagle ford) , solar and wind.

If one looks, Texas' coast is a good place to start, and the solar capacity is also pretty good. Most of the peak power generation from such solar plants looks attractive as a replacement as well.

Wind map
http://windeis.anl.gov/guide/maps/map2.html

Solar map
http://www.ecotechnousa.com/EcoTechnoNews/DidYouKnow/tabid/68/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/6/Solar-Myth-4.aspx

Texas also has its own grid, which helps in planning.

Also, Texas has faced some pretty severe droughts and water right fights that have made companies that operate plants requiring water for their boilers nervous. Yet another potential variable cost that will likely get expensive.

I am not saying that we couldn't do better (we can), but we are not some sort of laggard where it comes to renewables (believe me, it surprises me every time I look at the data)


Also, you are right, we do have a lot of coal, but you are also right, we are killing them off as they reach retirement age (some even years before) and replacing them with much cleaner power generation (and leading the nation in renewables while we are at it).
Thanks for those charts I was looking for something exactly like that.

[RandomGuy]

I am not saying that we couldn't do better (we can), but we are not some sort of laggard where it comes to renewables (believe me, it surprises me every time I look at the data)

That is what I mean when I say things like "the world has changed".

Solid investment money is what is driving this trend.

These people are the capitalist class that people like PopTech lionizes, and aren’t doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, but because they are looking at the same data I am, and reaching similar conclusions.

That is a bitter pill for conservative ideologues to swallow, because it is so counter to their narrative.

For a long time the argument “renewable are more expensive and a pipe dream” has held somewhat true, reinforcing this narrative and engendering a knee-jerk anti-green energy reaction.

Given these are the kinds of people with very strong confirmation biases that suggests that there is a lot of money to be made betting against them.

If I were more cynical and less ethical, it would be very easy to put together a sure loser fossil fuel portfolio investment fund that plays to their egos, and then turn around and short it behind their backs, I have come across a couple of funds that seem to be doing the first part, so I don’t think I am the only one that has occurred to.

Hey, that’s capitalism for you. Make money on information asymmetry, and then blame the victim for not having the personal responsibility to invest wisely.

[Drachen]

That is what I mean when I say things like "the world has changed".

Solid investment money is what is driving this trend.

These people are the capitalist class that people like PopTech lionizes, and aren’t doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, but because they are looking at the same data I am, and reaching similar conclusions.

That is a bitter pill for conservative ideologues to swallow, because it is so counter to their narrative.

For a long time the argument “renewable are more expensive and a pipe dream” has held somewhat true, reinforcing this narrative and engendering a knee-jerk anti-green energy reaction.

Given these are the kinds of people with very strong confirmation biases that suggests that there is a lot of money to be made betting against them.

If I were more cynical and less ethical, it would be very easy to put together a sure loser fossil fuel portfolio investment fund that plays to their egos, and then turn around and short it behind their backs, I have come across a couple of funds that seem to be doing the first part, so I don’t think I am the only one that has occurred to.

Hey, that’s capitalism for you. Make money on information asymmetry, and then blame the victim for not having the personal responsibility to invest wisely.

Agreed on all counts. Cant really add anything else ATM. :lol

[DarrinS]

That is what I mean when I say things like "the world has changed".

Solid investment money is what is driving this trend.

These people are the capitalist class that people like PopTech lionizes, and aren’t doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, but because they are looking at the same data I am, and reaching similar conclusions.





How is this working out for the Germans?

[TeyshaBlue]

I guess this doesn't fit your narrative, but texas (currently) has more total installed capacity of wind and solar than california will have AFTER they hit that goal (and it isn't even close). This doesn't even include the solar plant in austin or the new san antonio plant that will start construction soon. Texas has FAR more installed MW/capita than does california.

There are a lot of things that you can attack texas for, try to stick to the things that hold water.

:lolhttp://homerecording.com/bbs/images/smilies/facepalm.gif

[TeyshaBlue]

How is this working out for the Germans?

Relevance?

[Drachen]

How is this working out for the Germans?

well.

and...


Relevance?

[boutons_deux]

AGW is political issue for Repug/VWRC, not a scientific issue

Pew Poll Finds Clean Energy Is A Political Wedge Issue for Republicans

Energy has turned into a contentious campaign issue in 2012, pitting “drill-baby-drill” against “clean energy now.” But multiple polls now make clear that the clean energy issue is a winning one for progressives.

The way the media and cable TV frame the national debate may make it seem like there’s an even split between supporters of fossil fuels and supporters of renewable alternatives. However, a new poll from the Pew Research Center finds that clean energy has far more support than fossil fuels support across the political spectrum — except among conservative Republican males.

The poll illustrates how clean energy has become a wedge issue among Republicans moving into the presidential election. This is precisely what has happened on climate (see “Independents, Other Republicans Split With Tea-Party Extremists on Global Warming“).

Pew found that 52% of Americans believe “alternative” resources are the most important energy priority for the country. That’s still a substantial increase over oil, coal and gas, which received preferential support from 39% of respondents.

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/934798/pew_poll_finds_clean_energy_is_a_political_wedge_i ssue_for_republicans/

=======

Repugs WEAKEN America by relentless pushing their divisive, polarizing, dishonest WEDGE issues. Their are millions of duped, ignorant, shilling American sheeple to help suck down Repugs propaganda and lies. The Reugs' "America is broke" is their idea of patriotism.

[boutons_deux]

...

[TeyshaBlue]

lol...I bitchslapped you the last time you tried to pull this bullshit.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=191796

[TeyshaBlue]

http://www.people-press.org/files/2012/03/PP_12.03.19_AlternativeEnergy.png

Nat gas driving this?

[DarrinS]

Relevance?



well.

and...


http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/angela-merkel-pledges-progress-in-german-path-to-sustainable-energy-a-834980.html

[TeyshaBlue]

Germany wanting to dismantle it's Nuclear Energy program completely and sub renewable energy.

Yeah...just what I thought. About zero relevance to our situation.

[RandomGuy]

How is this working out for the Germans?


Relevance?

Good bit from Der Spiegel (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/angela-merkel-pledges-progress-in-german-path-to-sustainable-energy-a-834980.html)

Quick summary:

Electricity prices have been soaring in the last few years, driven in part by heavy renewables subsidies.

Darrin wants all of those prices to be blamed on the subsidies, of course.

Long summary:

Reality, as always is more complicated than his simplistic worldview, i.e with probable run ups in the EU for coal and natgas. I haven't seen the specific figures for the EU but globally prices for both have gone up a bit, so I would imagine that no small amount of that run up has been due to fuel prices.

Even bigger though, is their snap call to retire all their nukes after the Fukushima fuck up in Japan, which is proving too much of a barrier in practical terms.

The Germans have a MUCH more ambitious goal of cutting CO2 emissions, and have been investing heavily in renewables.

What will happen is that they will have to cut back, and allow the market some time to catch up.

The US is not Germany however. One can draw a cautionary tale about pushing too much top-down reform with subsidies, but the US with its continent- spanning size has a VAST renewable energy potential largely untapped, and relative to our economy/government etc, we have put very little into the effort.

The most economical and profitable places to put renewables haven't been even close to being fully tapped yet.

I'm sure his confirmation bias will tune out everything after the "but" above. Not really a good analogy.

I would point out the desert southwest gets far, far more sun than Germany does.

Sorry about the huge gifs, but it shows the solar potentials of the countries well:

http://www.solarfeedintariff.net/images/germany.png

(edit) Berlin is at the same latitude as Newfoundland in Canada, hundreds of miles north of Maine.(/edit)

http://www.seia.org/galleries/default-image/Solar%20Map--US.gif

[RandomGuy]

and PopTech continues to ignore this thread.

Can't blame him.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/angela-merkel-pledges-progress-in-german-path-to-sustainable-energy-a-834980.html

That's funny. You found the same article.

Of course you didn't really finish reading the whole thing, but hey. You tried.

(pats Darrin on the head patronizingly)

You tried little guy.

[RandomGuy]

So let's get a running score card of questions posed to PopTech, that he has not answered so far, and to be fair, he hasn't has much of a chance to answer some of them.



1) What does this imply for future coal/gas prices to US consumers of coal and natural gas? (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5907864&postcount=380)

2) From the 2006 line, how much off was their prediction of coal prices in 2010? (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5907850&postcount=379)

3) When does solar produce the most energy? (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5907847&postcount=378)

4) X/0

Is this operation going to get you a relevant bit of data to decide on the ultimate efficacy of the investment? (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5907843&postcount=376)

5) What affect would this have on the data you presented? (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5907377&postcount=353)

6) Can current methods profitably extract the oil from the formation noted in the article of the OP? (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5910491&postcount=386)

7) Tell me, according to this table, what is the minimum LEC cost for:

conventional coal based on 2009 prices per mWh?

For wind? (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5907328&postcount=347)

8) If a scientist expresses a belief that a non-scientific theory has the same credibility as a scientific one, does that indicate one should assign more or less credibility to that scientist overall? (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5911481&postcount=240)

The list grows....

[RandomGuy]

ooooh1!!!!!1!!!

Now I have a precioussss lissst.'


BUWAHAHAHAHAHA


http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=212&pictureid=1702

[RandomGuy]

He really isn't going to answer any of those questions.

Wow.

"when does solar produce the most energy?"

Really? that is too much to ask?

Wow.

[Wild Cobra]

Good bit from Der Spiegel (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/angela-merkel-pledges-progress-in-german-path-to-sustainable-energy-a-834980.html)

Quick summary:

Electricity prices have been soaring in the last few years, driven in part by heavy renewables subsidies.

Darrin wants all of those prices to be blamed on the subsidies, of course.

Long summary:

Reality, as always is more complicated than his simplistic worldview, i.e with probable run ups in the EU for coal and natgas. I haven't seen the specific figures for the EU but globally prices for both have gone up a bit, so I would imagine that no small amount of that run up has been due to fuel prices.

Even bigger though, is their snap call to retire all their nukes after the Fukushima fuck up in Japan, which is proving too much of a barrier in practical terms.

The Germans have a MUCH more ambitious goal of cutting CO2 emissions, and have been investing heavily in renewables.

What will happen is that they will have to cut back, and allow the market some time to catch up.

The US is not Germany however. One can draw a cautionary tale about pushing too much top-down reform with subsidies, but the US with its continent- spanning size has a VAST renewable energy potential largely untapped, and relative to our economy/government etc, we have put very little into the effort.

The most economical and profitable places to put renewables haven't been even close to being fully tapped yet.

I'm sure his confirmation bias will tune out everything after the "but" above. Not really a good analogy.

I would point out the desert southwest gets far, far more sun than Germany does.

Sorry about the huge gifs, but it shows the solar potentials of the countries well:

http://www.solarfeedintariff.net/images/germany.png

(edit) Berlin is at the same latitude as Newfoundland in Canada, hundreds of miles north of Maine.(/edit)

http://www.seia.org/galleries/default-image/Solar%20Map--US.gif
Yep.

Clear skies and lower latitudes make a substantial difference in solar efficiency.

Not real practical where I'm at, in Oregon.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY&list=PL6A1FD147A45EF50D&feature=plpp_play_all

Thinking that we can maintain the status quo is so unbelievably ignorant.

[RandomGuy]

Yep.

Clear skies and lower latitudes make a substantial difference in solar efficiency.

Not real practical where I'm at, in Oregon.

Check the wind map.

Heh, either it is sunny or it is windy, in most place in the US. Some have both.

Oregon has better wind potential than most of Texas.

[Wild Cobra]

Check the wind map.

Heh, either it is sunny or it is windy, in most place in the US. Some have both.

Oregon has better wind potential than most of Texas.
Yes, but sometimes too much.

They were planning to build windmills at a point in or near the Columbia gorge. They abandoned the idea when they feared the wind gusts would be too strong for the towers, without really spending too much money on the structures.

Has a tornado ever hit a wind farm yet?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Thought this was an interesting article talking about how various solar technologies can produce more smooth and consistent power 24 hours a day.

http://www.nrel.gov/news/features/feature_detail.cfm/feature_id=1788


Thermal Storage Gets More Solar on the Grid
February 14, 2012

Abengoa is erecting more than 3,200 mirrored parabolic troughs at its Solana plant near Gila Bend, Ariz. When at full operation, the CSP plant will serve more than 70,000 homes.

It's 4:45 on a sweltering August afternoon, and the rooftop solar panels are starting to lose juice. The sun's lower angles and that huge cottonwood tree are interfering with the efficient photon-to-electricity transfer.

What is an environmentally conscious — but air-conditioning-loving — homeowner to do?

Peak demand for electricity in the United States typically hits between 4 p.m. and 8 p.m., which doesn't quite line up with the sun's schedule. It's fortunate that the sun is high in the sky during many of the hours when the air conditioning is in demand. But in summer, people tend to need air conditioning during the dinner hour and beyond, when kitchen appliances are whirring, lights are on, and TVs are blaring.

To the rescue comes concentrating solar power (CSP), a technology being tested and deployed by utilities in America's deserts and southern Spain.

New analysis at the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has found that CSP, with its greater grid flexibility and ability to store energy for as long as 15 hours, can enhance total solar power generation and actually give photovoltaic (PV) systems a greater presence on the grid.

PV panels convert photons from the sun directly into electrons for electricity — and are grabbing real estate on rooftops across the Americas, Europe, and Asia.

CSP technologies use mirrors to reflect and concentrate sunlight onto receivers that collect the sun's heat. This thermal energy can then be used to drive a steam turbine that produces electricity for utilities.

Thermal Storage Can Even Out the Bumps

Like Edison and Tesla or Dempsey and Tunney, the two major solar energy technologies never meant to play nice. Each had its niche — and its dreams of market share.

But that's changing, said NREL analyst Paul Denholm, co-author with Mark Mehos of the study "Enabling Greater Penetration of Solar Power via Use of CSP with Thermal Energy Storage."

Think of power from PV as a roller coaster of highs and lows, and power from CSP, via thermal energy storage, as a gently rolling train.

PV panels and wind turbines contribute electricity to the grid, but without the ability to store that power, they cannot supply the grid after the sun sets, or after the wind dies. Even passing clouds can cause drops in the amount of solar energy that gets on the grid.

Large fossil-fueled and nuclear power plants can't be quickly stopped or started to accommodate variable energy sources such as solar and wind energy.

CSP can even out these ebbs and flows because it can store power and ramp up output when the amount of direct wind or solar power drops.

Grid Flexibility is the Key

"It all gets down to grid flexibility," Denholm said. "What sets of grid technologies do you deploy to make the grid respond faster and over a greater range to the input of variable energy such as solar and wind?

"If you can't respond quickly, you end up potentially throwing away wind and solar energy.

"We know that the more wind and solar you add to the grid, the harder it is to balance the grid and maintain reliability."

A CSP plant works by heating a heat transfer fluid that is used to boil water to make steam. But because of thermal inertia, by the time that fluid gets through the system's pipes to the power plant, perhaps 10 or 15 minutes have passed.

When a cloud passes over a PV panel, the drop in energy production is immediate. But because of the 10 or 15 minutes of thermal inertia, a cloud passing over a CSP tower doesn't cause this immediate drop. Nor is there the immediate surge when sunlight returns.

"The change is more gradual," Denholm said. "That's one reason CSP can bring a greater quality to the grid."

Still, the greater potential for CSP — and for CSP helping PV to expand its role on the grid — is its capacity to store the energy it captures from the sun for several hours, making it a source of reliable energy after the sun sets.

"CSP can fill in that gap in the evening when there's peak demand for electricity," Denholm said. "Together, the solar resource can provide all that peak demand. And together they can reduce or eliminate the need to build new power plants for those peak periods."

Molten Salts a Low-Cost Solution

Thermal energy storage at CSP plants "is low-cost because it's not exotic," Denholm said. "It's some large tanks with some media to store energy before you use it to boil the water." The best medium for storage available today is molten salt, NREL's Greg Glatzmaier said.

Molten salts are abundant and not very costly. They behave themselves, neither decomposing nor volatizing at the high temperature needed in a CSP plant — about 565 degrees Celsius (°C).

At a typical molten-salt CSP plant, the salts are stored in two tanks, one much hotter than the other.

In the case of a power tower CSP plant, in which the mirrors focus the sun's rays on one receiver atop a tower, the lower-temperature tank is at about 293°C, while the higher-temperature tank is at 565°C, Glatzmaier said.

The salt is pumped from the "cold" tank to the power tower, where it collects the solar energy that's focused on the receiver, raising its average temperature. The salts then descend into the "hot" tank, where they can maintain this very hot temperature for several days, though typically they are used within hours.

The salt in the hot tank is then sent to a heat exchanger that generates the steam needed to turn the turbines at a power plant. The turbines generate electricity that goes to homes and businesses.

As they exit the steam generator, the salts cool, and by the time they return to the cold tank, they measure at about 293°C.

When the sun is shining, the CSP plant can take the salts out of the cold tank, heat them up at the tower's receiver, and then dump them into the hot tank for storage, Glatzmaier said. "If you come to the end of the day and the hot tank is pretty full, you can keep generating electricity by withdrawing the salts from the hot tank to generate steam."

It's a continual balancing act. If all the salt is in the cold tank, no stored energy is available. If it's all in the hot tank, there's plenty of energy stored for later use, but nothing to replenish the system.

Molten salts tend to freeze at about 200°C, so as long as the two tanks range between 293°C and 565°C, the salts are in no danger of reverting to a solid state. At room temperature, the salts look like powdery white table salt. At the higher temperatures in a CSP plant, the salts look like water.

The molten salts used for storage are a mix of sodium nitrate and potassium nitrate. Sodium nitrate is mined from dry lake beds in Chile, in surroundings similar to the Utah salt flats. Potassium nitrate also occurs in nature and is mined in Chile, Ethiopia, and elsewhere.
Plants with Storage in Spain, Nevada, Arizona, California

Abengoa Solar is building a 250-megawatt CSP plant near Gila Bend, Ariz., that will cover 1,900 acres and use 900,000 mirrors to direct sunlight to heat a working fluid inside its tubes. The plant's six hours of thermal storage mean it can deliver electricity after the sun sets to approximately 70,000 homes.

The 19.9-megawatt power tower run by Gemasolar near Granada in southern Spain is configured to store enough energy during the summer to provide solar-generated electricity 24 hours a day, Glatzmaier said. In the winter, when there's less sunshine, electricity comes from more conventional sources a few hours each day. The system aims to power 25,000 homes and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by more than 30,000 tons a year.

SolarReserve is building the 110-megawatt Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project near Tonopah, Nev., which will use molten salt to store the sun's energy as heat for several hours. It will include more than 17,000 mirrors to focus the sun's light on a tower 640 feet high.

BrightSource is building an even larger CSP project in the Mojave Desert near Needles, Calif., that will have storage for just a couple of hours a day — but this will be enough to serve more than 140,000 homes during peak hours. Company executives say the plant will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by more than 400,000 tons per year.

PV/CSP Symbiosis Makes Economic Sense

The cost of PV has been plummeting, and it has a cost advantage over CSP. But CSP has the advantage of storage, and so teamed with PV can improve the benefits and bottom lines of both technologies. Storage does raise the price of a CSP plant, but "if you're running your turbine more hours in a day, you're amortizing your turbine cost over more generation time, and there's a real cost benefit there," Glatzmaier said. The bottom line: when storage is added to a CSP plant, it increases the value of its electricity — both its energy value and its capacity value.

Solar plants also can store energy in batteries, but at least for now, that approach is quite expensive. Other thermal storage technologies being investigated by researchers include phase-change or thermal-chemical storage.

Denholm and Mehos caution that the preliminary analysis in their study will require more advanced grid simulations to verify the actual ability of CSP to help wind and PV gain a larger presence on the grid. An important next step, they say, would be more complete simulations using utility-grade software. That will answer questions on the realistic performance of the generation fleet, transmission constraints, and actual CSP operations.

[boutons_deux]

22.24 GW of PV-Solar Output in Germany — New Record!

http://c1cleantechnicacom.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2012/05/Record-Solar.jpg

http://cleantechnica.com/2012/05/25/2224-gw-pvsolar-output-germany-new-record/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

[RandomGuy]

So let's get a running score card of questions posed to PopTech, that he has not answered so far, and to be fair, he hasn't has much of a chance to answer some of them.



1) What does this imply for future coal/gas prices to US consumers of coal and natural gas? (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5907864&postcount=380)

2) From the 2006 line, how much off was their prediction of coal prices in 2010? (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5907850&postcount=379)

3) When does solar produce the most energy? (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5907847&postcount=378)

4) X/0

Is this operation going to get you a relevant bit of data to decide on the ultimate efficacy of the investment? (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5907843&postcount=376)

5) What affect would this have on the data you presented? (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5907377&postcount=353)

6) Can current methods profitably extract the oil from the formation noted in the article of the OP? (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5910491&postcount=386)

7) Tell me, according to this table, what is the minimum LEC cost for:

conventional coal based on 2009 prices per mWh?

For wind? (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5907328&postcount=347)

8) If a scientist expresses a belief that a non-scientific theory has the same credibility as a scientific one, does that indicate one should assign more or less credibility to that scientist overall? (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5911481&postcount=240)

[Wild Cobra]

Moved to the other "pseudoscience" thread.

[Wild Cobra]

-delete-

Not important, and meant for the other "pseudoscience" thread.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I showed you the IPCC report from 2001 that clearly showed that they considered the equilibrium and partial pressures you are discussing or rather parroting from the non peer reviewed study.

I have a question: why do you not consider the CO2 transfer exchange coefficient?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967064508004311

Here is a study that discusses it. Your 'analysis' does not consider that, nor the ocean circulation, thermal layers, reactions with the ions that form, the effect of organisms etc.

How can you possibly think that your 6th grade science project level 'analysis' is in any way shape or form more predictive than studies that include all of the above?

[Wild Cobra]

I showed you the IPCC report from 2001 that clearly showed that they considered the equilibrium and partial pressures you are discussing or rather parroting from the non peer reviewed study.

I have a question: why do you not consider the CO2 transfer exchange coefficient?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967064508004311

Here is a study that discusses it. Your 'analysis' does not consider that, nor the ocean circulation, thermal layers, reactions with the ions that form, the effect of organisms etc.

How can you possibly think that your 6th grade science project level 'analysis' is in any way shape or form more predictive than studies that include all of the above?

So...

You cherry pick something that contradicts and call it fact.

If you read Dr. Glassman's work, he explains why the IPCC is is error, and sites source material to back his claim up. Is this material the IPCC used?

You should keep your confirmation bias in check.

Can you explain why the known solubility sciences are in error? That's what it would require.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So...

You cherry pick something that contradicts and call it fact.

If you read Dr. Glassman's work, he explains why the IPCC is is error, and sites source material to back his claim up.

You should keep your confirmation bias in check.

Can you explain why the known solubility sciences are in error? That's what it would require.

I didn't point out a contradiction. I pointed out an omission on your part. I would further point out that your numbers are 100% made up.

Again:


I have a question: why do you not consider the CO2 transfer exchange coefficient?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...67064508004311

Here is a study that discusses it. Your 'analysis' does not consider that, nor the ocean circulation, thermal layers, reactions with the ions that form, the effect of organisms etc.

How can you possibly think that your 6th grade science project level 'analysis' is in any way shape or form more predictive than studies that include all of the above?

You are calling out RG for not responding to your gross simplification. Answer my question: why do you not consider those factors and how can you possibly think your simplification is more indicative of what will happen?

Show me the part in the Glassman non-peer reviewed study --which even the hack PT discounts-- that says IPCC was in error. You initially claimed they did not account for solubility; I showed you you were wrong. I am guessing that this again is one of your 'suppose' moments.

And you accusing me of confirmation bias is like Eazy-E criticizing someone for bad language.

Answer the questions.

[Wild Cobra]

Seasonal changes in the surface water pCO2 and the sea-air pCO2 difference over four climatic zones in the Atlantic, Pacific, Indian and Southern Oceans are presented. Over the Southern Ocean seasonal ice zone, the seasonality is complex. Although it cannot be thoroughly documented due to the limited extent of observations, seasonal changes in pCO2 are approximated by using the data for under-ice waters during austral winter and those for the marginal ice and ice-free zones.

WTF...

When it is under the ice, there is no exchange.

Approximated? To what degree of error?


The net air–sea CO2 flux is estimated using the sea–air pCO2 difference and the air–sea gas transfer rate that is parameterized as a function of (wind speed)2 with a scaling factor of 0.26.

This may work for an annual change, but over consecutive years, the scaling should return to 1.


This is estimated by inverting the bomb 14C data using Ocean General Circulation models and the 1979–2005 NCEP-DOE AMIP-II Reanalysis (R-2) wind speed data. The equatorial Pacific (14°N–14°S) is the major source for atmospheric CO2, emitting about +0.48 Pg-C y−1, and the temperate oceans between 14° and 50° in the both hemispheres are the major sink zones with an uptake flux of −0.70 Pg-C y−1 for the northern and −1.05 Pg-C y−1 for the southern zone.

They at least acknowledge the sinking and sourcing.


The high-latitude North Atlantic, including the Nordic Seas and portion of the Arctic Sea, is the most intense CO2 sink area on the basis of per unit area, with a mean of −2.5 tons-C month−1 km−2. This is due to the combination of the low pCO2 in seawater and high gas exchange rates. In the ice-free zone of the Southern Ocean (50°–62°S), the mean annual flux is small (−0.06 Pg-C y−1) because of a cancellation of the summer uptake CO2 flux with the winter release of CO2 caused by deepwater upwelling. The annual mean for the contemporary net CO2 uptake flux over the global oceans is estimated to be −1.6±0.9 Pg-C y−1, which includes an undersampling correction to the direct estimate of −1.4±0.7 Pg-C y−1. Taking the pre-industrial steady-state ocean source of 0.4±0.2 Pg-C y−1 into account, the total ocean uptake flux including the anthropogenic CO2 is estimated to be −2.0±1.0 Pg-C y−1 in 2000.

This study, even with it's flaws, in no way disagrees with what I say. It does not address numeric estimates of what the ocean would sink and source if it had not warmed.

Please...

Explain why you think this study invalidates what I say.

This should be interesting.

[Wild Cobra]

The CO2 transfer exchange coefficient? Is that what you are hanging your hat on?

Don't you understand how temperature changes things?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This may work for an annual change, but over consecutive years, the scaling should return to 1.

You are an idiot. The above just goes to further prove that.

Answer my questions why do you not consider those obviously important factors I mentioned or time for that matter? Why do you think your napkin math using made up numbers is more indicative than studies that consider all of the factors?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The CO2 transfer exchange coefficient? Is that what you are hanging your hat on?

Don't you understand how temperature changes things?

:lol

You have not uncovered some new revelation that scientists haven't considered.

Its hilarious that your stupidity on the one hand thinks that they have not considered solubility makes their studies flawed and then turn around and pimp your oversimplifications.

You are an idiot.

[Wild Cobra]

:lol

You have not uncovered some new revelation that scientists haven't considered.

Its hilarious that your stupidity on the one hand thinks that they have not considered solubility makes their studies flawed and then turn around and pimp your oversimplifications.

You are an idiot.
What's hilarious is that you think that study invalidates what I say.

Where did they say the values would remain the same if the average temperatures changed?

[Wild Cobra]

You are an idiot. The above just goes to further prove that.

Answer my questions why do you not consider those obviously important factors I mentioned or time for that matter? Why do you think your napkin math using made up numbers is more indicative than studies that consider all of the factors?
I took the coefficient to be due to limited wind speeds, the changes are not instantaneous, so the change is only 26% the full change change annually.

If I'm wrong about what they meant, it still doesn't invalidate what I say.

Since you seem to claim I'm wrong, then tell me. What does it mean too you?

Again...

Their study does not invalidate what I say. If you think it does, please explain how.

[Wild Cobra]

Please...

Explain why you think this study invalidates what I say.

This should be interesting.

[Wild Cobra]

Can you explain why the known solubility sciences are in error? That's what it would require.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I took the coefficient to be due to limited wind speeds, the changes are not instantaneous, so the change is only 26% the full change change annually.

If I'm wrong about what they meant, it still doesn't invalidate what I say.

Since you seem to claim I'm wrong, then tell me. What does it mean too you?

Again...

Their study does not invalidate what I say. If you think it does, please explain how.

No one is saying that looking at the solubility of water is invalid, idiot. Looking only at that and acting like you have made a point is invalid.

Dimwit, HERE (http://geog.ucsb.edu/~joel/g280_s09/student_contrib/stubbs/semiletov2003GL017996.pdf) is a study talking about CO2 and ice. Specifically:


However,
pioneering measurements by Gosink and Kelley in the 1960–70s [Gosink et al., 1976; Kelley and Gosink, 1979] showed one year sea-ice was highly permeable to CO2 at temperatures above !15!C through numerous tiny channels. Mechanism involved in this process has been roughly
discussed. In this paper we present new data concerning the carbon flux across the sea ice and dynamics of the carbonate system in the Amerasian Arctic seas.

It took me all of two words in google and a click to find it.

Its really simple this is not a lab where you have the seawater in a closed container and you let it sit there for a day or however long it takes the relative concentrations to reach equilibrium.

The transfer is not instantaneous. They described how to measure it over a year. Now if the ocean was in a sealed contained and nothing changed then you would have a point. Eventually it would reach that equilibrium.

You have no point because there are organisms in the water, the water circulates, there are chemical reactions going on and what not that change the concentration of the water other than just dissolution. At that same time there are factors changing the atmospheric CO2 like us burning a fuckton of fossil fuels, trees and animals respirating and photsynthesizing, various other chemical reactions, geothermal events etc.

After a year you calculate all of that and then you have relative levels of atmospheric and oceanic CO2. You don't just keep the same fucking values that you started with. Then you do the same thing again for the next year and you sample each year year by year.

How the fuck do you think modeling works? Ever heard of sampling? This is why MiG and RG do not take you seriously. You are on the level of 6th graders but youre in your 50s.

Trying to describe the ocean with a solubility chart and thinking you have made a revelation is funny sure in the same way that watching Jerry Lewis make an ass of himself is funny but what point have you made? That is the ocean was in a test tube you could guess with fake numbers what would happen?

I am going to start treating you like Manny now and just laugh at you. The above is why. How can anyone take you seriously or bother to waste time trying to explain things to someone that is too stupid and unwilling to understand anything whatsoever but a solubility chart.

[Wild Cobra]

Dimwit, HERE (http://geog.ucsb.edu/~joel/g280_s09/student_contrib/stubbs/semiletov2003GL017996.pdf) is a study talking about CO2 and ice. Specifically:

However,
pioneering measurements by Gosink and Kelley in the 1960–70s [Gosink et al., 1976; Kelley and Gosink, 1979] showed one year sea-ice was highly permeable to CO2 at temperatures above !15!C through numerous tiny channels. Mechanism involved in this process has been roughly
discussed. In this paper we present new data concerning the carbon flux across the sea ice and dynamics of the carbonate system in the Amerasian Arctic seas.

Is it your contention that the CO2 is going to permeate through the sea ice, into the water below?

I'm curious, what do you think this has to do with my argument, or is it another sidestep of the issue, because you cannot properly dispute what I say?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Is it your contention that the CO2 is going to permeate through the sea ice, into the water below?

I'm curious, what do you think this has to do with my argument, or is it another sidestep of the issue, because you cannot properly dispute what I say?

Read the study I linked its peer reviewed and thorough. Thats not what I said and its little surprise that your pea brain lack imagination came up with that.

Yeah, I sure sidestepped. :rolleyes

You seem to be trolling now but you are an idiot nonetheless. DIAF.

[Wild Cobra]

Its really simple this is not a lab where you have the seawater in a closed container and you let it sit there for a day or however long it takes the relative concentrations to reach equilibrium.

The transfer is not instantaneous. They described how to measure it over a year. Now if the ocean was in a sealed contained and nothing changed then you would have a point. Eventually it would reach that equilibrium.

You have no point because there are organisms in the water, the water circulates, there are chemical reactions going on and what not that change the concentration of the water other than just dissolution. At that same time there are factors changing the atmospheric CO2 like us burning a fuckton of fossil fuels, trees and animals respirating and photsynthesizing, various other chemical reactions, geothermal events etc.

After a year you calculate all of that and then you have relative levels of atmospheric and oceanic CO2. You don't just keep the same fucking values that you started with. Then you do the same thing again for the next year and you sample each year year by year.

How the fuck do you think modeling works? Ever heard of sampling? This is why MiG and RG do not take you seriously. You are on the level of 6th graders but youre in your 50s.

Trying to describe the ocean with a solubility chart and thinking you have made a revelation is funny sure in the same way that watching Jerry Lewis make an ass of himself is funny but what point have you made? That is the ocean was in a test tube you could guess with fake numbers what would happen?

I am going to start treating you like Manny now and just laugh at you. The above is why. How can anyone take you seriously or bother to waste time trying to explain things to someone that is too stupid and unwilling to understand anything whatsoever but a solubility chart.
Wow...

You sure said a great deal of what I already knew.

Again, how does that keep the sea water solubility of CO2 from changing when the temperature changes?

[Wild Cobra]

I ask again:


Please...

Explain why you think this study invalidates what I say.

This should be interesting.


Can you explain why the known solubility sciences are in error? That's what it would require.

[Wild Cobra]

Read the study I linked its peer reviewed and thorough. Thats not what I said and its little surprise that your pea brain lack imagination came up with that.

Yeah, I sure sidestepped. :rolleyes

You seem to be trolling now but you are an idiot nonetheless. DIAF.
How about summarizing something that is important. We were not talking about the permeability of ice. Summarize something that shows what I say is wrong, or stop wasting my time on unrelated tangents.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This may work for an annual change, but over consecutive years, the scaling should return to 1.


You sure said a great deal of what I already knew.

Obviously.

And I answered your question in the first line of my last post, dolt.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

How about summarizing something that is important. We were not talking about the permeability of ice. Summarize something that shows what I say is wrong, or stop wasting my time on unrelated tangents.

I am not going to waste my time with someone as stupid as you, Dr. Scale Returns to 1.

[Wild Cobra]

I'll tell you what.

I emailed that to myself at work. Since it's only 4 pages, I'll read it when i have a chance tonight.

Time to go... I work swing shift.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

In addition to the absorption or release of CO2 due to biological processes, changes
in the solubility of gaseous CO2 can alter CO2 concentrations in the oceans and the overlying atmosphere.
 e solubility pump re ects the temperature dependence of the solubility of CO2 (i.e. solubility
is greater in colder water) and the thermal strati cation of the ocean27.


 e solubility and distribution of CO2 in the oceans depends on climatic conditions and a number of
physical (e.g. water column mixing, temperature), chemical (e.g. carbonate chemistry) and biological
(e.g. biological productivity) factors.

http://coralreef.noaa.gov/education/oa/resources/cbd_ts46_oceanacidification-web.pdf

:lol Yeah they sure don't consider it.

That took "models change in ocean temperature solubility" in google to find. It was the first link. They even consider the gradient of temperature.

[Wild Cobra]

Well Fuzzy...

Of your last three links, none of them disagree with what I have been saying, in fact all three say things I have been saying.

Strike 3.... You're Out!

That second one, that I read at work, is showing changes in the fraction of a milligram per meter square per second. That is still only

I was pointing out that there is no absorption under the ice between the atmosphere and water, but that is not my primary argument. It takes surface water for a good sink or source of CO2. The article talks about exchanges of CO2 when the ice pools up, or refreezes for the flux.

Really now... fractions of a milligram per square meter per second... That's still only 315 to 630 grams annually per square meter. Even their annual flux number for this surface pooling effect is around 0.04 GtC. wake up... we are talking total bio fluxes around 120 GtC, ocean fluxes around 90 GtC, and man's output around 8 GtC. I have left out bio fluxes in my arguments because they don't vary much with temperature. Ocean fluxes do, and those links you provided agree with me.

0.04 GtC... and you call me the fool?

Why don't you just ask me what you don't understand instead of going off the deep end with things that do not apply.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Strike 4,375,137. You are stupid. Lets make supposition and leave out the transfer coefficient, chemical processes, organic influence etc.


No one is saying that looking at the solubility of water is invalid, idiot. Looking only at that and acting like you have made a point is invalid.


Answer my questions why do you not consider those obviously important factors I mentioned or time for that matter? Why do you think your napkin math using made up numbers is more indicative than studies that consider all of the factors?

I will ask another did you or did you not say that climate scientists do not consider the changing temperature's effect on solubility?

[Wild Cobra]

Strike 4,375,137. You are stupid. Lets make supposition and leave out the transfer coefficient, chemical processes, organic influence etc.





I will ask another did you or did you not say that climate scientists do not consider the changing temperature's effect on solubility?
WTF are you talking about?

All along, when I speak of the sinking and sourcing of the oceans, I know there are other differences. However, temperature is the primary variable that changes the solubility equilibrium between that atmosphere and water. that is why I focus on that. Salinity is the secondary variable for CO2 transfer between the atmosphere and oceans. Biological variables in the ocean are a distant third place.

All along, I have been speaking of how the ocean temperature changes the flux. You are going out of your way to stay off of that argument.

I'm not disagreeing with most the other factors. Why are you making it out like that? If there is some misunderstanding there, let's figure out what it is, and get on the same sheet of music.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

How does a coefficient operate within a function?

[Wild Cobra]

How does a coefficient operate within a function?
Why are you asking me that?

That has nothing to do with my argument.

Is that what you want to win an argument on? rather than my argument that temperature difference change solubility?

A coefficient is essentially a variable assigned to a substance, like CO2, Oxygen, etc. Each one has a different value, which can then be plugged into an equation.

I didn't focus on that 0.26 coefficient. I'm not sure what purpose were talking about in the summary, and elaborated that I thought is was a percentage of the normal mixing because they interjected wind, indicating to me they were saying it takes time to see the effect.

Seriously. The solubility coefficient for CO2 doesn't need to change, especially when I am indicating that temperature is the primary variable to change the solubility, and salinity is the second.

Why does this matter to you?

[Wild Cobra]

How does a coefficient operate within a function?
Will you stop sidestepping the real substance of my argument, or is it that you are incapable of addressing it?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

IOW you don't know. I asked how a coefficient operates in a function.

So you in no way consider the transfer coefficient in your napkin math. Is that accurate?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Will you stop sidestepping the real substance of my argument, or is it that you are incapable of addressing it?


No one is saying that looking at the solubility of water is invalid, idiot. Looking only at that and acting like you have made a point is invalid.

You are dumb.

[Wild Cobra]

IOW you don't know. I asked how a coefficient operates in a function.

So you in no way consider the transfer coefficient in your napkin math. Is that accurate?
It is a multiplier.

Stop asking me stupid questions that I end up guessing what you want to know.

Can we get to you disproving that temperature has little or no effect of solubility of CO2?

No.

I don't consider CO2's coefficient because it doesn't change. Temperature changes.

[Wild Cobra]

So you in no way consider the transfer coefficient in your napkin math. Is that accurate?
Oh...

You just changes your wording.

Here I assumed you meant CO2 coefficient, now you specify "transfer" coefficient.

That is different, and changes with other variable.... like temperate, salinity, etc.

[Wild Cobra]

You are good at confusing me, I'll admit that.

You do mention transfer coefficient, but then link an article that says this:

The net air–sea CO2 flux is estimated using the sea–air pCO2 difference and the air–sea gas transfer rate that is parameterized as a function of (wind speed)2 with a scaling factor of 0.26.
This...

IS NOT A TRANSFER COEEFICIENT!

Transfer rate adjustment because of lag for the partial pressure change to get someplace is not the same as a transfer coefficient!

[Wild Cobra]

Here I assumed you meant CO2 coefficient, now you specify "transfer" coefficient.

That is different, and changes with other variable.... like temperate, salinity, etc.
Fuzzy...

Will you agree that the transfer coefficient of CO2 into sea water increases as the sea water temperature decreases, and that the transfer coefficient decreases as the water temperature increases?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzzy...

Will you agree that the transfer coefficient of CO2 into sea water increases as the sea water temperature decreases, and that the transfer coefficient decreases as the water temperature increases?

Nope. That is a different variable within the function, dipshit. If you were to actually read their studies and not be an idiot you would see that. They take the equilibrium difference due to concentrations and the solubility state at that time and they MULTIPLY IT BY THE COEFFICIENT. The concentrations of both are also not just simple x and y because they take into account all of these other things we have talked about. I have seen studies that attempt to use gradients and others that break it down into a grid and add them all up.

You take bullshit general numbers for the entire ocean from out of your ass determine the difference in equilibrium values and call it a day. It's fucking kindergarten bullshit.

The transfer rate is the coefficient, dumbass.

HERE (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988RSPTA.325...71T) is a Harvard study that spells it out since I do not expect you to just take my word for it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Transfer rate adjustment because of lag for the partial pressure change to get someplace is not the same as a transfer coefficient!

This is monumentally stupid. Not just a little bit but gibbering drooling all over yourself stupid.

[Wild Cobra]

Nope. That is a different variable within the function, dipshit. If you were to actually read their studies and not be an idiot you would see that. They take the equilibrium difference due to concentrations and the solubility state at that time and they MULTIPLY IT BY THE COEFFICIENT. The concentrations of both are also not just simple x and y because they take into account all of these other things we have talked about. I have seen studies that attempt to use gradients and others that break it down into a grid and add them all up.

You take bullshit general numbers for the entire ocean from out of your ass determine the difference in equilibrium values and call it a day. It's fucking kindergarten bullshit.

The transfer rate is the coefficient, dumbass.

HERE (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988RSPTA.325...71T) is a Harvard study that spells it out since I do not expect you to just take my word for it.
Well, I can't read the whole thing without paying money. Still, the summary suggests that the transfer coefficient is reliant primarily by temperature:

Monthly maps of the ocean--atmosphere CO2 gas-transfer coefficient are derived from meteorological winds for 1982. The seasonal variations are of the order of a factor 2, mostly in the Northern Hemisphere. A strong meridional pattern is observed: the exchange coefficient is larger at high latitudes than in tropical areas. However, the zonal variations within a latitudinal band (generally a westward enhancement) can be as large as the meridional ones. The representativity of the winds is a major concern: interannual variations of the order of 30% are documented by an analysis of four years of the monthly transfer coefficient derived from meteorological winds in the Atlantic ocean. In the future, these maps will be obtainable on a routine basis from satellite data. As an example, a map derived for August 1978 from Seasat altimeter winds is compared with the present ones.
There are multiple things that affect the transfer rate. Temperature is primary.

How about giving me a link that defines what you are calling "transfer rate coefficient."

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There are multiple things that affect the transfer rate. Temperature is primary.

How about giving me a link that defines what you are calling "transfer rate coefficient."


Monthly maps of the ocean--atmosphere CO2 gas-transfer coefficient are derived from meteorological winds for 1982.

You are fucking dumb. The word temperature is not even in the abstract.

I've given several links from the IPCC, PSU, Harvard etc.

How about you show me where they say its a function of temperature.

[Wild Cobra]

This is monumentally stupid. Not just a little bit but gibbering drooling all over yourself stupid.
If you say so. Considering they even mention "wind" and there is a time differential, I don't see how you can claim it to be "monumentally stupid."

How about this.

What is that 0.26 transfer rate measured in?

Is it grams/liter, milligrams/kg, etc.

What were they speaking of then if it isn't a percentage of the normal intake?

[Wild Cobra]

You are fucking dumb. The word temperature is not even in the abstract.

I've given several links from the IPCC, PSU, Harvard etc.

How about you show me where they say its a function of temperature.
winds...

LOL...

And winds take time to carry the changes of atmospheric content, and you're calling me dumb...

Maybe you should look in a mirror.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If you say so. Considering they even mention "wind" and there is a time differential, I don't see how you can claim it to be "monumentally stupid."

How about this.

What is that 0.26 transfer rate measured in?

Is it grams/liter, milligrams/kg, etc.

What were they speaking of then if it isn't a percentage of the normal intake?

Who is to say its not dimensionless?

And the only one that is talking about differentiating by time is you. Keep throwing shit against the wall, dumbass, I'm going to bed.

[Wild Cobra]

Back to my claim, that you haven't ever addressed.

Does temperature change the solubility?

Yes or no?

If temperature does change solubility, then how do you know that it cannot be the reason why CO2 levels are stabilized to where they are now?

[Wild Cobra]

Who is to say its not dimensionless?

And the only one that is talking about differentiating by time is you. Keep throwing shit against the wall, dumbass, I'm going to bed.
OK, then tell me.

What do they mean by that 0.26?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And winds take time to carry the changes of atmospheric content, and you're calling me dumb...

:lol Just when I think you cannot be dumber.

WTF do you think they are accounting for? WTF do you think its a function of windspeed. If more wind blows across the surface, the more the coefficient changes.

Seriously are you trying to sound like an idiot? You are doing a great job.

Anyway, bad night, fuckface.

Thanks for the chuckle though.

:rollin

[Wild Cobra]

Forget everything else.

i will concede that I am wrong on evertyhing else...

Just mnot this...

The solubility of CO2 in sea water increases as sea water temperature decreases, and the solubility of CO2 in sea water decreases as the sea water temperature increases.

This is my argument. That's my argument.

I don't care about your sidetrack issues, so I will concede because you are wearing me out on the stupid nuances that we don't agree on with terminology. I simply don't care about the definitions we have disputes over. It does not change scientific facts, which you are doing everything possible to avoid discussing when it comes to solubility changes by temperature.

[Wild Cobra]

WTF do you think they are accounting for? WTF do you think its a function of windspeed. If more wind blows across the surface, the more the coefficient changes.

My God...

You are the dumb one.

The primary ocean sink is in the north Atlantic. The primary ocean source is (if I remember right) the equatorial Pacific.

When we generate CO2 on land, it takes time for the increased CO2 content to reach a sink.

It isn't instantaneous.

Now I don't know with any certainty what that 0.26 is suppose to be in the study. That's why I asked you. I told you what my assumption was. If you refuse to tell me, then I must assume you are talking out your ass.

[Borat Sagyidev]

.... what a stupid thread

“ All the easy oil and gas in the world has pretty much been found. Now comes the harder work in finding and producing oil from more challenging environments and work areas. ”
— William J. Cummings, Exxon-Mobil company spokesman, December 2005[52] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil#cite_note-bostonglobe122005-52)
“ It is pretty clear that there is not much chance of finding any significant quantity of new cheap oil. Any new or unconventional oil is going to be expensive. ”
— Lord Ron Oxburgh, a former chairman of Shell, October 2008


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b0/GrowingGap.jpg


Energy independence my ass...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/Hubbert_world_2004.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/US_Crude_Oil_Production_versus_Hubbert_Curve.png

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Now I don't know with any certainty what that 0.26 is suppose to be in the study. That's why I asked you. I told you what my assumption was. If you refuse to tell me, then I must assume you are talking out your ass.


ocean--atmosphere CO2 gas-transfer coefficient

Really? Whats that for? Youre having trouble figuring that out? I told you how its used earlier in this thread I even bolded the complex mathematical relationship that it has with the rest of the function.

And talking out of my ass? I am citing peer reviewed papers and letting them speak for themselves. You are fumbling through napkin math with numbers that you made up and talking about comparing CO2 to a dye when CO2 dissolutes and dye does not.

[RandomGuy]

Energy for transportation – including cars, trucks, ships, trains
and airplanes – is expected to increase by nearly 45 percent from
2010 to 2040. The global growth in transportation demand is
likely to account for approximately 75 percent of the growth in
liquids demand over this period. Nearly all the world’s
transportation fleets are likely to continue to run on liquid fuels
because they provide a large quantity of energy in small volumes,
making them easy to transport and widely available.
Demand for electricity around the world is estimated to
increase approximately 80 percent by 2040, led by growth in
developing countries. Consistent with this projection, power
generation will remain the largest and fastest-growing major
segment of global energy demand. Meeting the expected growth in
power demand will require a diverse set of energy sources.
Natural gas demand is likely to grow most significantly and gain
the most market share. Coal is likely to retain the leading share of
power generation fuels in 2040, albeit at a much lower share than
in 2010 as policies are gradually adopted to reduce environmental
impacts including those related to local air quality and greenhouse
gas emissions. Nuclear power and renewables, led by wind, are
likely to grow significantly over the period.

...

The world’s energy mix is highly diverse and will remain so
through 2040. Oil is expected to remain the largest source of energy
with its share remaining close to one-third in 2040. Coal is currently
the second largest source of energy, but it is likely to lose that
position to natural gas by approximately 2025. The share of natural
gas is expected to exceed 25 percent by 2040, while the share of coal
falls to less than 20 percent. Nuclear power is projected to grow
significantly, albeit at a slower pace than otherwise expected in the
aftermath of the Fukushima incident in Japan following the
earthquake and tsunami in March 2011. Total renewable energy is
likely to reach close to 15 percent of total energy by 2040, including
biomass, hydro and geothermal at a combined share of about 11
percent. Total energy supplied from wind, solar and biofuels is
expected to increase close to 500 percent from 2010 to 2040, reaching
a combined share of approximately 4 percent of world energy.



http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Files/news_pub_ir_finstmts2011.pdf


FWIW they have invested rather heavily in the last few years in equipment and so forth.



.. combined share of approximately 4 percent of world energy.

The Corporation anticipates that the world’s available oil and
gas resource base will grow not only from new discoveries, but
also from reserve increases in previously discovered fields.
Technology will underpin these increases. The cost to develop and
supply these resources will be significant. According to the
International Energy Agency, the investment required to meet
total oil and gas energy needs worldwide over the period 2011-
2035 will be close to $20 trillion (measured in 2010 dollars) or
close to $780 billion per year on average.

All energy has costs.

THe thing is that with this money sloshing into energy, renewables will get some of that, as Exxon's analysts have rightly noted.

You will see tremendous relative growth in renewables, as a vanishingly small sector becomes a small sector.

Again, I think renewables are going to make a lot more progress than most analysts think, for a host of reasons that I don't believe are being really encapsulated in conventional thinking on the subject.

That said, oil will still be a main source of energy in 2040, as Exxon rightly points out.

[RandomGuy]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b0/GrowingGap.jpg

One has to be careful when viewing some of this.

The exploration from the mid 1990's to about 2003 fell off a cliff because the price of oil fell so much. This graph, widely produced here and elsewhere shows a trend that has not held.

Recent additions to reserves globally have exceeded production, especially given the vast uptick in exploration.

From 2005 to 2011, Exxon more than doubled its exploration and capital expenditures. High prices will drive that.

THAT said, as all the oil companies themselves point out, discoveries WILL taper off.

What is left will require a lot more capital to exploit, and the financials reflect that in the capital property and plant expenditure increases.

(edit)
For those interested, Exxon's discussion of their total reserves start at page F-63:

http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Files/news_pub_ir_finstmts2011.pdf

2009-2011 had Exxon spending heavily, but earning a pretty good return on that investment, and expanding their total reserves about 4% (this is net of subtractions from production)

(edit #2)

It should be noted this is from a quick analysis of ONE company, but Exxon's experience doesn't tend to be too far out of line with other Western Oil majors.

[RandomGuy]

In 2006 the Corporation replaced 122 percent of production including asset sales, and has replaced 114 percent
of production on average over the last five years.

[RandomGuy]

All of that said, most oil production globally is in the hands of inefficient national oil companies, who are viewed as piggy banks by their national goverments.

Most of the rest of the world has been under-investing in new production, and replacing equipment.

Pemex (mexico) and PDVSA (venezuala) are good examples. Google is that way if you want to read up.

More worrisome is what is happening to Russia:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markadomanis/2012/05/20/is-russian-oil-production-plummeting/

A decided lack of transparency when it comes to Russia's oil production does not engender confidence that they have kept their production up.

My gut says that their figures were honest up until about 2003 or so, when production first started to decline a little (2003 is a rough guess based on memory, would have to re-find articles to get exact date), then I think the Kremlin stepped in and started over-stating their production for political prestige purposes.

Falling production as a result of kicking out BP about that time and their expertise/capital out is probably what prompted them to go back to BP recently. I would say "crawling back", since they realize that they cannot keep their production up without assistance.

Anyhoo, lunch is over.

[RandomGuy]

How is this working out for the Germans?

Interesting look at exactly that. Argh. Out of time.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9205#more


Article also speaks to one of PopTech's points regarding extra investments due to intermittancy problems.

Their next step is to push renewables closer to where the energy is consumed, i.e. rooftop solar and the like.

It is an interesting case.

[RandomGuy]

I wonder if Yoni will ever man up and define "hydrocarbon denial".

Or even tell me what technology is in the pipeline to get at all the hydrocarbons talked about in the OP.

I would be interested in reading about it.












Since Yoni has not bothered to show any such technology, he might as well hang his hat on magic to get at all that oil/gas.

The magic hydrocarbon unicorn will do it. Right?

[boutons_deux]

What determines energy abundance? Flow.

Energy abundance depends entirely on the RATE of energy flow. Let me say it again: Energy abundance depends entirely on the RATE of energy flow.

Now, here is what it does NOT depend on: supposed, but often unverified (http://www.resourceinsights.blogspot.com/2012/09/has-opec-misled-us-about-size-of-its.html), fossil fuel reserves in the ground; hypothetical, sketchy, guesstimated, undeveloped, undiscovered resources imagined to be in the ground by governments or by energy companies and often deceptively referred to as "reserves"*; claims about future technological breakthroughs; mere public relations puffery about abundance in the face of record high average oil prices (http://www.resourceinsights.blogspot.com/2013/03/oil-is-at-100-and-theyre-telling-us-its.html).

Why is the rate of flow the key metric? Because in order to function the global economy depends entirely on continuous, high-quality energy inputs. We cannot shut down the world's electric generating plants for six months or even three months without crashing world society into a state of irretrievable chaos and decline. We cannot shut down the world's shipping fleet for even a few weeks without doing irreparable harm. Modern global society has become like a shark. It either keeps barreling forward or it dies.

Fossil fuels that are actually proven to be in the ground are by definition not currently being used, whatever we may consider their potential. Fossil (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Fossil+Inc.) fuels that are hypothetical and undiscovered by definition cannot be used. Technology is NOT energy. Technology runs ON energy. Energy first, then applied technology. The ancient Romans designed and built small steam engines and used them to animate children's toys. But, the Romans lacked the dense energy sources needed to make steam engines practical as a mode of transportation or of power for manufacturing.

Now, why am I making such a fuss about all this? Because this week we have yet another entry in the ongoing energy misinformation derby, this time from the usually sensible Atlantic Monthly magazine. In fairness, the headline on the magazine's cover which reads "We will never run out of oil" was probably not chosen by the author for it does not really respect the nuances found in the piece which inside has the only slightly less disinformational headline:

"What If We Never Run Out of Oil?" (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/05/what-if-we-never-run-out-of-oil/309294/)

The subheading makes the astounding claim that fossil fuels may not be finite making me believe that the editors didn't actually read their own story.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment...All+Stories%29 (http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2013/0502/What-determines-energy-abundance-Flow?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+feeds%2Fcsm+%28Christian+Scie nce+Monitor+|+All+Stories%29)

[RandomGuy]

I wonder if Yoni will ever man up and define "hydrocarbon denial".

Or even tell me what technology is in the pipeline to get at all the hydrocarbons talked about in the OP.

I would be interested in reading about it.


Since Yoni has not bothered to show any such technology, he might as well hang his hat on magic to get at all that oil/gas.

The magic hydrocarbon unicorn will do it. Right?

Enter fracking.

Although the shale formations talked about the OP won't work for the particular kinds of formation talked about in the OP, if memory serves.

We have massively increased our oil production, and the price is still far about $50 per barrel and that price is still dependent on what happens in the middle east.

The US will see a hubbert curve part 2, and that will wind down too, unless some new tech comes along.

[DarrinS]

Pseudoscientists cherry pick data that suits them, and ignore wider contexts.

This is the kind of thing that 9-11 twoofers have to do in order to maintain their inaccurate worldviews. Find the ONE bit of data to cling to, ignore anything else that contradicts it, and claim that anyone who puts forth data that contradicts this world view is part of the conspiracy.

Missing bits of context:
What about the land ice?
What is happening at the other pole?
How thick is the sea ice? (volume has three dimensions, length, width and depth, so it is possible for something to be longer and wider, but still have less volume).

http://www.skepticalscience.com/arctic-antarctic-sea-ice.htm


It's ironic that you post shit from this cartoonist's website. Same cartoonist tried to publish some pseudo-scientific drivel called "Recursive Fury: Conspiracist Ideation in the Blogosphere in Response to Research on Conspiracist Ideation", linking climate change skeptics to conspiracy nutters in something called "Frontiers in Psychology".

Paper was retracted. :lmao

http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00073/full

[boutons_deux]

Enter fracking.

Although the shale formations talked about the OP won't work for the particular kinds of formation talked about in the OP, if memory serves.

We have massively increased our oil production, and the price is still far about $50 per barrel and that price is still dependent on what happens in the middle east.

The US will see a hubbert curve part 2, and that will wind down too, unless some new tech comes along.

gas, oil from rapid-depletion fracking is the Red Queen phenom, gotta keep investing, drilling,spending faster and faster just to stay in one place.

rate of consumption world-wide has exceeded rate of discovery for decades. cheap oil, like in Saudi Arabia, is long gone.

I'm absoluteley against US exporting gas and oil, two natural resources that belong to USA, not to BigOil's short-term profit taking.

[RandomGuy]

It's ironic that you post shit from this cartoonist's website. Same cartoonist tried to publish some pseudo-scientific drivel called "Recursive Fury: Conspiracist Ideation in the Blogosphere in Response to Research on Conspiracist Ideation", linking climate change skeptics to conspiracy nutters in something called "Frontiers in Psychology".

Paper was retracted. :lmao

http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00073/full

http://media.tumblr.com/e79ded059a35277a126e350a35c6c623/tumblr_inline_n6t2jtVxVb1rjhkmg.gif


In the light of a small number of complaints received following publication of the original research article cited above, Frontiers carried out a detailed investigation of the academic, ethical, and legal aspects of the work. This investigation did not identify any issues with the academic and ethical aspects of the study. It did, however, determine that the legal context is insufficiently clear and therefore Frontiers wishes to retract the published article. The authors understand this decision, while they stand by their article and regret the limitations on academic freedom which can be caused by legal factors.


http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00293/full


They didn't have the money to fight the frivolous lawsuits, essentially.

That is how pseudos-scientists work. Thanks for bringing it up.