Slashdot Mirror
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.
Great Scott!!!!!!!
To put 21 gigawatts in perspective, that's approximately 17 trips through time.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
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.
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?
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.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
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.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
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?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
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?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
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.
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...
If lying wins an election, then lying is not the problem.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
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.
I stole this Sig
We already have the F-35.
You are welcome on my lawn.