Clinton Plan To Power Every US Home With Renewables By 2027 Is Achievable

Lucas123 writes: As part of her campaign pledge, Hillary Clinton has said she would make it a priority in her first term to increase the number of solar panels by 500M and U.S. installed solar capacity from 21 gigawatts (GW) today to 140GW by the end of 2020. Her plan, is to increase solar, wind and other renewables so that they'd provide 33% of America's electricity by 2027, enough to power every home. While the plan may sound overly ambitious, experts say, it's not. Today, renewables provide about 15% of America's power. Shayle Kann, senior vice president at GTM Research, said the Clinton's renewable energy goal is doable, but with caveats. In order to achieve the goal, current programs, such as federal tax breaks for solar installations (set to expire next year), must continue and future initiatives, such as Obama's Clean Power Plan that will begin in 2018, must not be curtailed. Considering that if elected, Clinton wouldn't take office until 2017, the her campaign goals could be more bravado than reality. Clinton, however, is not alone. While most candidates have yet to announce their clean energy plans, Clinton's Democratic contender, Martin O'Malley, also came out with strong support for the end of fossil fuel use and a full clean energy economy by 2050, and creating a national goal of doubling energy efficiency within 15 years.

Comments

21 Gigawats?

[Anonymous Coward]

Great Scott!!!!!!!

Re:21 Gigawats?

[cayenne8]

Damn...it is gonna get mighty cold in them houses up north, on cloudy winter days with snow piled up halfway to the roofline when the solar panels are damned near useless, no?

Re:21 Gigawats?

[Dr. Tom]

Folks living in Florida selling power to the north will be chuckling. Jeb Bush should be all bug-eyed with the profit potential.

Re:21 Gigawats?

[WillAffleckUW]

In northern areas, you pitch the solar panels at an angle, and many houses have them on the high slope south facing roofs. There are these things called brushes we use to clean off snow so it doesn't collapse our roofs. My dad lives in a house in Vermont that is solar powered for electricity and hot water, and he survives the winters quite nicely. Helps if you have R28 insulation and triple pane windows too.

Re:21 Gigawats?

[riverat1]

Damn...it is gonna get mighty cold in them houses up north, on cloudy winter days with snow piled up halfway to the roofline when the solar panels are damned near useless, no?

There are a lot of naysayers telling us how one thing or the other won't work but we didn't get to where we are as a civilization by listening to them. It's the people with the "can do" attitude that lead us to the future.

Re:21 Gigawats?

[Mashiki]

I live in South-Western Ontario, there are a lot of houses here which still have doors on their second floor because the winters used to be so severe(though I'll bet the folks north of London ~6 years ago were glad they did when they got 22'/6.7m of snow in three days). The last 20 years though it's been less of an issue, but we don't usually get snowfalls often enough where we have to remove snow from our roofs here or in that particular area of the US.

Though there's a guy a few blocks away who got a FiT install with solar panels, no one could come by the clean them off. They broke, needless to say he was out $40k in replacement because he didn't have the coverage on his homeowners insurance.

By my calculations

[grasshoppa]

To put 21 gigawatts in perspective, that's approximately 17 trips through time.

Re:By my calculations

[netsavior]

"Jigawat" is the accepted pronunciation for the term involving electricity. according to Webster's dictionary

Re:By my calculations

[Roger W Moore]

"Jigawat" is the accepted pronunciation for the term involving electricity. according to Webster's dictionary

That dictionary can't even spell colour correctly so it's hardly surprising it doesn't know how to pronounce the words either.

headline is misleading

[Noah Haders]

headline says:

Clinton Plan To Power Every US Home With Renewables By 2027 Is Achievable

but the summary says

Her plan, is to increase solar, wind and other renewables so that they'd provide 33% of America's electricity by 2027, enough to power every home.

what this means is that the amount of renewable generation would equal residential use, not that each house would be 100% renewable.

In CA Southern California Edison is currently 22% renewable, and they have plans to go to 27%. This doesn't include home generation like rooftop solar panels, which should count for the 33% goal.

Re:headline is misleading

[SydShamino]

The headline is sufficient for those who do not understand how the power grid works, and anyone who knows how the power grid works would not be misled by the headline.

Even though my bill says "100% wind" on it, and somewhere out there are windmill(s) generating as much electricity as my home consumes, the actual power consumed in my house might just as easily come from the coal plants up the highway. It's all on the same grid.

If you understand that, then it's obvious that "Power Every US Home With Renewables" means "Generate As Much Renewable Energy As All Homes Consume". What appears on the bills of those homeowners is irrelevant.

Re:headline is misleading

[ScentCone]

Also, this is a campaign promise.

You've already fallen for it! It's NOT a campaign promise. It's an aspiration. A "priority." The president can no more wave her hands and make such a thing happen than he or she can wave his or her hands and make healthcare get cheaper. Now THAT was a campaign promise ("You can keep your doctor. Period. You can keep your plan. Period. The average household will save $2,500 year on health insurance, and it will start costing about what a mobile phone does.") See the difference?

Re:headline is misleading

[Noah Haders]

The headline is sufficient for those who do not understand how the power grid works, and anyone who knows how the power grid works would not be misled by the headline.

Even though my bill says "100% wind" on it, and somewhere out there are windmill(s) generating as much electricity as my home consumes, the actual power consumed in my house might just as easily come from the coal plants up the highway. It's all on the same grid.

If you understand that, then it's obvious that "Power Every US Home With Renewables" means "Generate As Much Renewable Energy As All Homes Consume". What appears on the bills of those homeowners is irrelevant.

I disagree. If utilities had to provide 100% renewable power to every home, then it would need to have significant overcapacity, because it would need enough renewables for the PM peak and have idle renewables during other times. So to power homes with 100% renewables you would need to have many times more renewable capacity than homes consume.

Re:headline is misleading

[ScentCone]

the first iteration

Hilarious.

What does it matter if there is some future change to the law (not counting the illegal unilateral changes made by the president by selectively choosing whether to follow the statute's specific requirements once he realized it wasn't politically expedient). If you've already lost your insurance plan, or you've had to give up your doctor, and can no longer use the convenient nearby hospital because of the law's impact (all things that we were promised wouldn't happen, which the law's partisan authors knew WOULD happen, and about which the president repeatedly and deliberately lied), then that damage is already done. Not that it matters. Even if you can afford one of the new plans, the deductibles are hugely higher - making the effective premiums even higher than their new, higher stated values.

So for many, many people the "affordable" care act has: blown away existing insurance plans, removed choices of doctors and hospitals, doubled and sometimes tripled premiums, and in many cases quadrupled deductibles. All of which was well known in advance, and was proactively lied about, repeatedly, by Pelosi, Reid, and Obama. Republicans also knew it was coming, which is why NOT ONE of them voted for that monstrosity of a law.

Re:headline is misleading

[TsuruchiBrian]

Or we develop a good way to store the energy. We could invest in better batteries, or we can pump water up a hill, or lift heavy things to high places, or spin things really fast in a vacuum, or use the energy to split water molecules, etc.

Maybe we would lose a lot of energy transferring it from one form to another, but it's better than just wasting it to heat immediately.

Re:headline is misleading

[ScentCone]

He said that because people were worried that the doctor the currently had would suddenly be unavailable to them when the law kicked in. This is exactly what happened, to a lot of people. It happened to our family. The insurance policy with which we were perfectly happy evaporated because the law considered it unacceptable (the new law requires that we buy insurance that covers, among other things, maternity care ... which is super handy now that we're in our 50's). The new plans from which could choose did not include the doctor we're happy with, and precluded the use of two of the nearest (and best) hospitals. Our premiums went from roughly $250 a month to over $500, and our deductible went from $2,500 to $12,000.

Each of these things was predicted with great clarity by not only the people opposed to the law's passing, but also by the people who WROTE the law. But in front of cameras, Obama lied about each and every point of it, repeatedly, and deliberately. If he had been honest, and if he'd talked Pelosi and Reid into also being honest about the consequences of the law (instead of the "You'll have to pass it to see what's in it" explanation she provided), it would never have passed. Democrats talked into voting for it have since said they wouldn't have voted for it if they'd understood the huge new costs, taxes, and service limitations that it puts on middle class families.

You know, and Obama knew, EXACTLY what "you can keep your doctor" meant when he said it - he was trying to tamp down the very vocal concerns that exactly what has happened would in fact happen. He knew it was going to, but he lied about it anyway. What I don't understand is why you're trying to spin it for him. What do you gain by attempting to back up the deception?

Re:headline is misleading

[serviscope_minor]

Scotland plans to be 100% renewable by 2020, but only by generating 200% of what it needs with half from renewables and exporting the excess.

Well, that sounds like more SNP massive head-in-the-clouds wishful thinking to me.

http://www.withouthotair.com/s...

Page 2 contains a chart for the whole of britain. Cover tthe entire south facing country's roofs with solar panels. Put wind farms on over the top 10% of windiest land and put 500km of wave machines along the roughest parts of the coastline. And that matches about 50% of the UK's energy use. Those levels of coverage are truly astronomical.

There's no figures just for Scotland, but it's about 10% of the size populationwise, so let's say 10% energy use. Even if you're generous be generous and assume all of the windiest land is in Scotland, as are the waviest costs. And let's ignore solar. Scotland has very roughly half of the land area of England. They'd have to cover about 2% of their entire country with wind turbines and much of that is very wild and inaccessible without the infrastructure for such a major undertaking, and cover about 10% of their coastline with technology that doesn't yet exist[1].

That's theoretically possible, but given it would take that long ust to construct the roads to the required places, it's nothing more than wishful thinking. Unless this is of course SNP speak where "entirely renewables" actually means "entirely except for ones that are too big to deal with so we ignore then" coupled with "taxes from England can pay for all of this".

[1] Practical wave power generation is still a thing of the future. We can generate power from waves easily. Making a machine which can survive 10 years in the sea and not be destroyed by the occasional huge winter storm is an unsolved problem.

Could be?

[MikeRT]

the her campaign goals could be more bravado than reality

Please, enough with your sexist, cis-male, privileged bullshit. Everyone knows that Clinton has always run a clean, transparent operation wherever she goes and isn't one to blame significant swaths of the country for her failures. Next thing you'll be telling us she has a foundation that acts as a pay-for-play slush fund that enables assholes from around the world to get access to her and Bill.

Re:Fun question:

[Anonymous Coward]

funner question: is this before or after the FEMA camps are activated

Re:For the last goddamn time

[SJHillman]

Would you prefer "naturally replenishing on a scale that is non-depletable in any practical sense at the present time"? It takes a little longer to say, but maybe it would be more to your liking?

Re:Is anyone against distributed solar/wind power?

[sabbede]

Seeing as how power companies are more interested in their bottom line than political gamesmanship, I'd have to go with choice #1. Since it's becoming ever more practical, it's going to become responsible for an ever greater portion of our energy production.

Heck, she could have asked around for predictions of renewable adoption so she could announce a "plan" to get us to 33%, knowing in advance that it will happen on its own. That way if she wins, she can look like a success without having to do anything. Not the worst idea ever.

Re:Let the market decide.

[danbob999]

I agree. We should also let the market decide if the military and the police are worth paying for. Instead of forcing taxes to the home owners, every citizen should pay whatever they think military and police are worth. What could possibly go wrong?

Why solar?

[Solandri]

Solar is currently the most expensive renewable by far. I know the dream is to power everything in your house with solar panels on the roof, but the technology just isn't there yet (at least without tremendous expense).

The latest complete electrical production stats (2013) put renewables at 12.8%. 6.6% of that is hydro, 4.1% is wind, 1% is burning wood (yes it's a renewable), 0.5% is "other biomass" - mostly natural gas captured from landfills, 0.4% is geothermal, and only 0.22% is solar (thermal and photovoltaic). Solar isn't last because of some grand conspiracy. It's last because it's the most expensive.

Why would you want to put the most expensive technology on the fast track for widescale adoption? Because it taps into the wishes and dreams of those who don't know better? The whole point of being an elected official is that your sole job is to learn this stuff so you can make better decisions about it than the voters who elected you who don't have the time (or sometimes the capability) to learn this stuff. A more well-reasoned approach would be to encourage wider adoption of wind (hydro is pretty much tapped out in the U.S., and wind is just a hair's breadth more expensive than coal), while continuing subsidies into solar R&D. Encouraging wide-scale adoption of PV solar at current levels of technology and cost is wasteful and foolish when better alternatives exist.

Re:Why solar?

[radl33t]

Solar is currently the most expensive renewable by far.

Huh? This thinking seems outdated. Average solar has reached (and beaten) cost parity with all competing generation except for about the top 50%, top 25% of wind projects, and nearly all consequential new hydro proposals. ABY is adding solar yield projects with better returns than prior wind and hydro projects developed under more lucrative subsidy regimes... Projects are breaking ground with PPAs in the sub 6 cent range. First Solar, Recurrent Energy are successfully building projects and generating gross margins of 15-20% by selling power at 0.0387 $/kWh and .047 $/kWh respectively. They are doing it for 5 and 6 cents all over the world, even locations without subsidy. That is competitive with virtually any new energy construction. Companies building owning these projects are and will outgrow the global economy for foreseeable future (absent all subsidies) and then become the most impressive profit machines in the history of markets within a few decades. Minting money from fully-depreciated assets like the world has never seen (haha, except from current utilities :) ) I don't think you fully comprehend the economics of a maintenance free, nearly indestructible, fully-depreciated, solid state, money making machine. And thus business plan can scale to several % of global GDP without a hitch...

but the technology just isn't there yet (at least without tremendous expense).

Huh? Specifically what are the technological challenges? Today's technology will likely generate 70% of its nameplate capacity 50 years from now. All components are now offered standard with warranties that will last the entire amortization period. Solar panels and micro inverters would be among if not the most durable and reliable products in your home. Solar energy is available at higher energy density than necessary for single family construction and multi family construction less than 4 stories, aside from that there is no shortage of cheap land, even cheap land at favorable transmission and distribution locations.

There are tens of millions + homes all over the country for which a homeowner with good credit can go net positive energy using a cash flow positive PV investment (e.g. PV + financing = cheaper than utility bill) and actually provide a pretty good return on investment that has lower risk and better return than many different financial vehicles that would be sold to you as part of a balanced portfolio. For a solar array producing power after the 20-25% amortization period, the reduction in total cost of ownership for the home over the lifetime of these components will be tens of thousands of dollars.

You are clearly not up to speed on the technology, the production costs, the financing, or the global explosion in the industry.You have rested on some older state of knowledge too long. The technology awesome. The economics are extremely favorable. The only barrier is the transition to an enlightened long term view about power production. Don't blame cheap, high performance technology for man's failure to identify the obvious advantages of long term thinking.

Re:Why solar?

[FlyHelicopters]

First Solar, Recurrent Energy are successfully building projects and generating gross margins of 15-20% by selling power at 0.0387 $/kWh and .047 $/kWh respectively. They are doing it for 5 and 6 cents all over the world, even locations without subsidy. That is competitive with virtually any new energy construction

No it isn't, but thanks for playing. Note that you listed 2 rates, then noted it costs more elsewhere "without subsidy".

So those rates aren't real and couldn't be scaled up because they are being bought down with tax dollars.

You are clearly not up to speed on the technology, the production costs, the financing, or the global explosion in the industry.You have rested on some older state of knowledge too long. The technology awesome. The economics are extremely favorable. The only barrier is the transition to an enlightened long term view about power production.

The irony is that you need a mirror, you're the one with fantasy thinking...

Let me help you out with a specific, real example.

I just signed an agreement for power for my business. Thanks to the dropping price of oil and natural gas, my rate is going down for the first time in awhile.

I'll be paying 6.2 cents per kwh for the first 2,000 kwh and 6.8 cents per kwh for everything over 2,000 kwh. That is the total bill price. That is very cheap for such low usage and it includes everything, from power delivery to generation to taxes. The source of that power is a mix of coal, natural gas, and nuclear.

The same company can provide me with 100% renewables if I want it, 9.1 cents per kwh for the first 2K and 9.6 cents beyond that.

So renewables are 50% more than coal and natural gas where I live.

Re:Why solar?

[ember42]

Germany is powered by coal oil and gas, with a veneer of solar (https://www.energy-charts.de/energy.htm), has some of the dirtiest power around, and it's little bit of solar has made it some of the most expensive power around...

Re:Why solar?

[Anonymous Coward]

Specifically what are the technological challenges?

The real challenge is the ability to maintain the stability of the power grid once renewables are increased. In order to maintain the stability of the power grid the amount of energy being produced has to equal the amount of energy being consumed. In other words load has to equal generation, the conservation of energy and physics makes this a requirement.

Now this isn’t an issue when the load is low and generation is high. For the most part generation can be shed and the demand can be meet with little to no impact to consumers. Trouble starts when generation is low and load is high. In this scenario you need to either shed load (making a lot of people angry) or increase generation.

Right now I don’t believe anyone will argue that we can’t generate enough energy over all with solar and other renewables. The technical challenge with renewables is making the generation consistent enough so that it is always capable of instantly meeting the demands of the power grid (remember load always has to equal generation). On those nights when the wind isn’t blowing where the wind turbines are, utilities will need to find a way to provide that power.

A sensible solution is to develop a method to store excess energy during the time when generation is high than demand. That stored energy could then be used to make up for the low generation when the demand is higher. Unfortunately the development of a large scale energy storage solution has not happened yet. This is a very big technical challenge, ask Germany (considered by many to be the leader in renewable generation) who is presently dealing with this very issue

I guess another solution would be to develop a large enough method of renewable generation that would be available all the time or at least during the times that solar and wind aren’t available.

Re:For the last goddamn time

[Jawnn]

There is no such thing as "renewable" energy. It's only a goddamn law of thermodynamics.

Wow. Second post in the thread and it's already the hands-down winner of the "Pendantic Dipshit" award.

Re:Fun question:

[Mr D from 63]

How the hell much is this going to cost?

Likely a crapload more than the so called "expert" who is really from from a solar/wind industry media outlet tells us it will.

Re:Fun question:

[Ichijo]

Or maybe due to negative externalities that weren't properly internalized into the price of energy, energy prices have been artificially low all along, encouraging people to live energy-intensive lifestyles, and now all of a sudden they have to pay the piper.

Nah, that couldn't possibly be true at all.

Get the power from source to consumer

[QuietLagoon]

The current power grid is set up to carry power from the current generating sources through a hierarchy of distribution systems to the consumer (i.e., your house).

If the solar panels that are opined are to be installed are on the consumers' houses, how will the power distribution grid need to be changed?

If solar panels are in the desert somewhere, will a new distribution system need to be built (along what right of way?) to carry the electricity from the desert to the consumers?

In other words, don't just look at the power generation source, also look at getting that generated power to the consumer.

Re:Samzenpus got hit in the head this morning

[FlyHelicopters]

It was the insurance company that changed your doctor or your plan, not the ACA.

Yes... because of ACA...

Re:Talking points?

[FlyHelicopters]

Now, out of that small handful of people, which one cares about us exactly?

The only person who has a remote chance of caring about us is Trump.

Wait, wait, don't bring out the pitch forks... yea, I know he is a walking ego trip, yes he is a arrogant SOB...

I am well aware of that... but he also has nothing to gain by screwing us at this point. He is now old, very wealthy, and has nothing else to do but take the country in a new direction. He also isn't owned by lobbyists or 30 years of political connections the way Bush and Clinton are.

If Bush or Clinton are elected, exactly nothing will change. If you keep doing what you've always done, you'll keep getting what you've always gotten.

At least Trump will kick over the table and say, "new direction".

Will it turn out well? Hard to say, we won't really know without trying, but at some point we either try something new, or accept the current situation forever.

She won't be president

[Karmashock]

She was basically expected to fail. For various political reasons within the DNC she needed to be given the presumption of a chance but there was an understanding from the start that she'd not go anywhere.

Sort of like the republicans running John McCain or something... the know he's not going to win. They might even nominate him... but if they do... they know he's not going anywhere.

Hillary is the same thing and so is Bernie or Trump. the political forces that know anything know that these people are the opening circus attraction.

Behind Hillary there are a lot of people in the Dem ranks that can stand up and be more credible than her. And they will especially since Hillary appears to be self destructing faster than anything believed possible. This email thing is getting increasingly serious. I doubt she's going to jail over it but... it is looking like something nasty could come out of it. The sweater is getting unraveled.

On the other political side you have Trump... who also will not be president. Its not going to happen. Even if he got the nomination and he won't... but even if he did... he'd still lose.

So who cares what these people say they would do. I might as well stand up and say what I would do if I were president. Or anyone else on slashdot... Stand up and tell us what you'd do if you were president.

Whatever you said matters about as much as Hillary's various schemes to get enough votes to get her party's nomination.

I will say this... IF Hillary got nominated... she might win. She'd have a D after her name and that is a very powerful thing in an election. But... I don't think she's going to get nominated.

She's kind of a female Al Gore in a lot of ways. Neither Gore nor her wants to associate with Bill Clinton but neither of them would even be considered for high office without that association. I don't know why they distance themselves from Bill. If I were either of them I'd walk around on stage as Bill Clinton gave me piggybacks. As much as possible, I'd try to make people think they were voting for Bill Clinton.

Bill Clinton could actually win again... I mean... legality and term limits aside... people like him. No one likes Hillary. Even her supporters don't like her. They feel comfortable with her maybe or they think her politics are right or whatever. But they don't like her. Who wants to have a beer with Hillary? or a glass of wine or anything? No one likes her. Bill is funny. He's got stories. He's charming. You'd have a good time and he projects that in his politics and personality.

Hillary projects... Agnes from accounting... The woman in the office that does something boring and repetitive that no one cares about... she goes home every day at 5pm and people assume she has a lot of cats because of the pictures of cats all over her cubicle...

I mean seriously... imagine if Hillary were not a politican but just some person. Would you want to know her or spend any time with her?

Exactly. I mean... I'd rather spend time with Trump then her... and Trump is insane. But Trump is at least amusing. I'd likely deck him every so often... and doubtless he'd call the cops on me because I assume he's a whiny bitch on the subject. But... people you want to spend time with versus not is relevant in politics. Likability.

And that's a problem for old Hill. She isn't getting the nomination. I don't see it. And if she does... she's one of the weaker presidential candidates the dems could field.

I'd actually fear Bernie more in this election if I were the republicans more than Hillary. I mean... bernie is a frizzy haired crack pot. But he's at least sincere. He actually believes the shit that comes out of his mouth. Hillary doesn't believe anything. Those are just animal sounds she makes to lull the peasants. Everything is focus groups, talking points, lobbying scripts... she licks her finger, holds it up to the wind, and that's her position.

And I think THAT perception is going to be very hard for her to overcome.

Re:For the last goddamn time

[HornWumpus]

Coal is also 'naturally replenishing on a scale that is non-depletable in any practical sense at the present time'.

Who knew we were already so green?

Re:For the last goddamn time

[kqs]

Or maybe because hydro is mature and already close to peak, so giving it incentives would not help the overall energy picture? The point of most of the "renewable energy bills" is to drive development and deployment of a large range of renewables. If solar panels become much cheaper/better (such that "the market" will handle it) then I'd expect solar panel subsidies to dry up. To my uninformed view, it looks like wind may be approaching that level?

Re:For the last goddamn time

[Hevel-Varik]

Pedantic!

dammit.

Re:Not possible, but nice try

[x0ra]

Technically, if you use solar to heat molten salt, it can be made to produce energy at night (thermal inertia).

Here's an idea....

[erp_consultant]

Maybe Hillary could conduct a pilot project in her own home. Throw a few panels on the roof. It might even generate enough to power an email server.

Umm...it appears that the email server has been disconnected. Well, never mind. It's the thought that counts :-)

Re:Talking points?

[kqs]

If Bush or Clinton are elected, exactly nothing will change.

Last time we had a Clinton, we shrunk the deficit down to zero and grew the middle class and the economy.

Last time we had a Bush, we exploded the deficit, started multiple wars that we couldn't end, and crippled the economy.

While I too wish that the parties and candidates were a bit more different, I'm not sure you can call them identical...

Re:Consider the source - a pathological liar

[fustakrakich]

If lying wins an election, then lying is not the problem.

Re:Samzenpus got hit in the head this morning

[Archangel Michael]

The ACA was well intentioned

No it wasn't. IT was designed from the beginning to snooker the American people into a broken "insurance" scam designed to break the medical/insurance industry. It was designed to fail, so that Americans would jump into single payer, crap healthcare.

You can keep your plan (Lie)
It isn't a tax (Lie)
You can keep your doctor(Lie)
It will cost less(Lie)
You'll have better coverage (Lie)

And I am sure supporters will provide anecdotal evidence that some of these claims were true for them. Plenty of people lost their doctors, plans and spend more for less insurance. OH, and Obama lied about not increasing taxes on those making $250k or less. BUT who cares, Cecil the lion is dead!

Re:For the last goddamn time

[Speck'sBacon]

There is no such thing as "renewable" energy. It's only a goddamn law of thermodynamics.

Wow. Second post in the thread and it's already the hands-down winner of the "Pendantic Dipshit" award.

Do I get the Pedantic and Off-Topic Dipshit award for pointing out that there's no such thing as inorganic produce? :)

Re:World Peace Is Achievable

[x0ra]

isn't that why the US has been starting so much war in the past 50 years ? World peace ?

Re:For the last goddamn time

[HornWumpus]

Fast enough that there is no chance of it running out.

Re:Samzenpus got hit in the head this morning

[FlyHelicopters]

BUT who cares, Cecil the lion is dead!

Yea, the outrage over that is amazing...

People are so stupid, I sometimes have little hope for humanity.

If you want to care about something, how about the thousands of miles of coral reef that China is destroying to build islands in the South China Sea? That is FAR more damaging to the planet than a lion dying.

But no one cares, because they aren't being told to care, because people are idiots and sheep. Which I guess isn't new, but it is sad. :(

Re:Talking points?

[Anonymous Coward]

The only person who has a remote chance of caring about us is Sanders.

Fixed. He may be a relative fringe candidate, but as the election approaches, so will become Trump.

Re:Samzenpus got hit in the head this morning

[JackieBrown]

Sometimes because of ACA, though I've heard rumors that in the decades before the ACA insurance companies sometimes changed their policy offerings without Obama causing it! Seems unlikely I know...

But yeah, the ACA did change a lot of "good if you never needed them" plans. You would think that the free market would have weeded out either the shysters who offered those plans or the gullible marks who bought them, but that never seems to happen in practice.

The ACA doesn't kill insurance plans, insurance companies kill insurance plans. (Yeah, this version is just as nonsensical).

ACA does kill the plans by making them no longer affordable. When the president or his lobbyists can add new things and require them to be covered at 100%, a lot of cheaper plans that younger people would have wanted fall apart.
And regardless, Obama is the one that made the claim that insurance would be cheaper once everyone was on it. That hasn't worked out at all as lots of people predicted.

Archangel Michael is correct. This was not a well intentioned plan. It was a plan designed to crash the current health system while making it look to be the fault of the evil insurance companies.

Say what you will about Obama, he is very good at making himself look like the victim being picked on by mean bullies. Name one debate where he didn't use the phrase "common sense solution" and then criticize or make fun of everyone who didn't agree with him

Re:The Glorious East

[WillAffleckUW]

Um, we don't have a state income tax in WA. Doubt it.

We already subsidize your fossil fuel tax exemptions and other tax giveaways to your Chinese overlords.

Re:Let the market decide.

[danbob999]

On the other hand, privatized fire departments actually work

No they don't. It's a rarely used service which is a lot more efficient if everyone is paying for it. It is not efficient at all to move the whole fire department over to a house just to watch it burn and make sure it doesn't spread to neighbors.
It's also a natural monopoly. It wouldn't be efficient to have two competing fire departments in a small town. It's much better to have a larger one with better equipment. And even then, it's better when nearby towns collaborate in the event of a large fire.
Just because they exists doesn't mean they work or are efficient.

The big problem with anarcho-capitalism, IMHO, is the free rider problem [wikipedia.org]. If 90% of the people make their voluntary contributions to the national defense, and 10% don't, it is not possible for the defense to allow attacks on the 10%. National defense is either effective for everyone or effective for nobody.

The exact same logic applies to power generation. Everyone suffers from pollution coming from fossil fuel power plants. Those getting cheap electricity from coal are free riding on those paying more for renewable. It also applies at the national level. The US/Canada/Australia are currently free riding on the rest of the world by emitting way more greenhouse gases per capita than the world average.

The article is uninformitive

[ember42]

All the article does is project capacity growth rates by assuming same rate as now with continued subsidies, higher rate required to meet target, or reduced rate without subsidies. It does not address things like storage, grid balance, distribution, etc.
This is the basic finance sector assumption of linear growth grates of market shares, when the actual dynamics depend on the market share already achieved. In short, the article tells us nothing at all.

Re:Talking points?

[steelfood]

I'm afraid you're equating change with good.

Change is not the equivalent to good. Change is change. The only thing you know about change is that it's not "no change".

Trump is change. It's a big change. You get the possible benefits you've listed out. And you'll also get a raving lunatic on an ego trip. That's a marked change from the past 24-28 years.

But is it a good change? Because a big change can mean really good. And it can mean really bad. And since we're a little bad right now, really good would net us good, but really bad nets really, really bad.

Are the benefits of Trump's "big changes" worth the risk? That's for you to decide I guess.

Re:Talking points?

[LWATCDR]

"Will it turn out well? Hard to say, we won't really know without trying, but at some point we either try something new, or accept the current situation forever."
I have never set myself on fire but I really don't need to try it to see if it is a good idea.

Re:Talking points?

[fustakrakich]

The entire thread is about some hand-waving "priorities" she'll have as president.... Pointing out how disingenuous she's been on pretty much every other issues she's ever mentioned is NOT off topic.

He got modded by a Hillary supporter. But 'disingenuous' and 'hand-waving'? These are the qualities the voters reward. There is no need to single her out. We know these politicians are frauds (and clowns!) and we know who they serve, and yet we elect the same carny hucksters over and over for 30 years or more. So, what do you have against winning? It is not their fault for being successful. Are we supposed to shock the monkey when it does what it is told? That would produce some very strange results. And let's all be honest here, she's only evil to you because she is on the democrat ticket. Otherwise she and a holographic Reagan would be singing "Unforgettable" together on stage at the GOP convention.

Re:Consider the source - a pathological liar

[fustakrakich]

We don't need to depend on the news networks anymore. They are not exactly a public service.

Re:Talking points?

[quantaman]

The only person who has a remote chance of caring about us is Trump.

Wait, wait, don't bring out the pitch forks... yea, I know he is a walking ego trip, yes he is a arrogant SOB.. I am well aware of that... but he also has nothing to gain by screwing us at this point. .

That doesn't mean he cares about you, it just means he's responding to different incentives.

He is now old, very wealthy, and has nothing else to do but take the country in a new direction.
    He also isn't owned by lobbyists or 30 years of political connections the way Bush and Clinton are.

If Bush or Clinton are elected, exactly nothing will change. If you keep doing what you've always done, you'll keep getting what you've always gotten.

The fact he has different baggage doesn't he has no baggage. If anything I'd say he's more likely to have some massive skeletons stuffed in the closet of an unsavoury operator.

As for a new direction 'new' doesn't necessary mean better, I don't see how a guy batting to the looniest of the fringes is going to be a change for the better.

At least Trump will kick over the table and say, "new direction".

Will it turn out well? Hard to say, we won't really know without trying, but at some point we either try something new, or accept the current situation forever.

Just read this twitter exchange. It's not a policy position or anything like that but I think it's illustrative.

First, who in their right mind gets in an insult fight with a professional comedy writer?

Second, once they're in that fight who throws out insults like a 5 year old and acts like they're kicking ass?

Trump was obviously once competent enough at one thing to make billions, but at this point, in this context, it's pretty clear that he's spent so long surrounded with yes-men that he's completely out of touch with reality. The prospect of having him in power scares me more than Sarah Palin.

Re:Assume her figures are good. The huge catch is.

[Paul Carver]

In my sun-drenched community, a few wealthy Republican early adopters have rooftop solar installations that supply all their needs.

I'm curious about your methodology. Can you elaborate on how you determined their affiliation? Do you personally know all the people in your community with rooftop solar or did you determine their party affiliation in some other manner?

Can you also clarify whether you merely mean that they are registered to vote in republican primaries, or do you have solid evidence that they vote a strict republican hard line in all elections regardless of candidates or issues?

There are a scattering of houses with rooftop solar in some of the neighborhoods where I run (on foot for exercise, not for political office) but it would never have occurred to me to research the political party affiliation of the homeowners.

Re:Fun question:

[Ichijo]

Unless you can point to or create an objective set of criteria for those "negative externalities" and do so in a way that sets an objective price point for them? It's a nice way of saying that pollution sucks, but way too subjective to actually use fairly.

Here's one example: The cost of air pollution in the San Joaquin Valley is more than $1,600 per person per year, or $6 billion to the region's economy, according to the researchers.

Re:Samzenpus got hit in the head this morning

[Archangel Michael]

"legitimate insurance plan"

It was legitimate before ObamaCare. Simply writing a law didn't change that.

AND if you're asking me, ObamaCare isn't a "legitimate insurance plan" it is a tax. If it isn't a tax, then it is unconstitutional.

Re:For the last goddamn time

[FlyHelicopters]

Coal?

Yes, coal is indeed likely being used faster than it is replenished.

Does this matter if we have 50,000 years of coal in the ground?

The current estimates are based only on existing mines, the whole bloody planet is swimming in coal and oil.

Note: This doesn't mean I think we should burn it all, I actually don't. We just have a LOT of it...

Re:Talking points?

[quantaman]

The prospect of having him in power scares me more than Sarah Palin.

Now THAT scares me... that you'd rather have her than him.

She is an idiot who doesn't know anything about anything, at least Trump knows about business.

Yes, he is a walking ego trip, perhaps a blowhard and a PITA...

At the end of the day I'd expect a Palin Whitehouse to be a bit of chaos quickly taken over by bureaucrats as she realizes that being President is a) confusing, and b) a lot of hard work. It would be incompetent and shoddily run but the kind of damage people can work around.

Trump is the kind of person who will follow through with an absolutely terrible idea because it's his idea and he won't let anyone deter him, he can cause real damage.

Have you stopped to consider that some of his comments of the past few months are actually quite carefully considered? He would not be getting anything close to the media attention without them, he is leading the republican polls, so clearly he is doing something right.

Have you stopped to consider he's only polling so high because he has huge name recognition and he's essentially a sideshow. The Republican primaries have been a gong-show since 2012 and I'm doubtful that most of the people indicating him would be actually do so if they thought he had a chance of winning.

Why does everyone want to hire a lawyer or professional lifetime politician to be President, instead of a CEO?

Another example, Steve Jobs was a PITA to work for, he'd yell, scream, tell you were you a moron, yet he clearly knew something.

Some of the nicest people in the world would make for crappy leaders.

CEO is a very different skillset than President. I don't have any objection to CEOs as Presidents in general though I think Trump would be terrible. Jobs too, I don't think he'd have been bad, but the things that made him special as a CEO wouldn't translate to being a President.

And back to Trump, have you considered the possibility that his behaviour is just some early manifestation of senile dementia? I don't want to focus on it because it sounds very insulting, but at the same time his behaviour and seeming obliviousness is downright bizarre. He wouldn't be the first politician past retirement age to start acting erratically and be diagnosed with dementia a few years later, if you're considering him for President I think it's a possibility you have to take seriously.

Re:In related news...

[PopeRatzo]

Clinton also announced a new initiative to replace the warplanes of the American air force with modern and environmentally sound flying pigs.

We already have the F-35.

Re:Samzenpus got hit in the head this morning

[jeaton]

It isn't a tax, as in it's not a line-item on your tax bill

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf...

Health care: individual responsibility (see instructions) Full-year coverage []

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf...

Health care: individual responsibility.
You must either:
Indicate on line 61 that you, your
spouse (if filing jointly), and your dependents
had health care coverage
throughout 2014,
Claim an exemption from the
health care coverage requirement for
some or all of 2014 and attach Form
8965, or
Make a shared responsibility payment
if, for any month in 2014, you,
your spouse (if filing jointly), or your
dependents did not have coverage and
do not qualify for a coverage exemption.

See the instructions for line 61 and Form
8965 for more information.

There is your ACA tax-form line item.

Political Hot Air

[Roger W Moore]

It's the people with the "can do" attitude that lead us to the future.

A can-do attitude is useful when you have an idea about how to do something new and nay-sayers then argue against that idea ever working. What we have here is a political goal with no clue about how to achieve it which is not the same thing. The problem with a 100 % 'renewable' energy solution is that the power is very variable. Show me a plan to deal with that and I'll be interested. Until then this appears nothing more than political hot air.