Rice farmers in Texas take it in the shorts

[Wild Cobra]

The price would plummet.

Disagree.

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

Agree.

[RandomGuy]

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

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

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

[RandomGuy]

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

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

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

[Wild Cobra]

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

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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

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

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

[Drachen]

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

[Wild Cobra]

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

And the differences are...

Can you guess?

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

Can you think of others...

Like...

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

Why are you guys making so much out of this?

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

[Drachen]

And the differences are...

Can you guess?

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

Can you think of others...

Like...

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

Why are you guys making so much out of this?

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

[CosmicCowboy]

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

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

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

[clambake]

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

are you taking another shot at asians?

[CosmicCowboy]

are you taking another shot at asians?

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

[clambake]

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

[Wild Cobra]

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

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

[RandomGuy]

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

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

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

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

[RandomGuy]

FWIW a couple of interesting tidbits:

How German Solar Has Made All German Electricity Cheaper

http://cleantechnica.com/2012/02/29/...icity-cheaper/


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

Solar Cheaper Than Diesel Making India’s Mittal Believer: Energy
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...er-energy.html

Germany Plans Record Cuts in Solar Subsidies to Limit Boom
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...ions-boom.html

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

[GSH]

FWIW a couple of interesting tidbits:

How German Solar Has Made All German Electricity Cheaper

http://cleantechnica.com/2012/02/29/...icity-cheaper/


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

Solar Cheaper Than Diesel Making India’s Mittal Believer: Energy
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...er-energy.html

Germany Plans Record Cuts in Solar Subsidies to Limit Boom
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...ions-boom.html

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

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

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

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

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

But, hey, ignorance is bliss.

[CosmicCowboy]

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

[RandomGuy]

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

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

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

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

But, hey, ignorance is bliss.

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

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

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

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

I see no reason that will change, do you?

[Winehole23]

...

[RandomGuy]

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

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

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

Consider:

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

or

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



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

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

[RandomGuy]

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

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

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

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

[RandomGuy]

Germany Plans Record Cuts in Solar Subsidies to Limit Boom

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...ions-boom.html

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

[GSH]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Germany Plans Record Cuts in Solar Subsidies to Limit Boom

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...ions-boom.html

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

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

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

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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

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

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