Renewable Energy Shows Strong Gain In U.S. (arstechnica.com)

WheezyJoe writes: According to the US Energy Information Administration, solar, wind, and gas dominate new US generating capacity in 2016. This year is notable because it will see the first new nuclear plant brought online in 20 years, contributing 1.1 GigaWatts to the grid. But that contribution will be dwarfed by renewable power sources, which together account for nearly two-thirds of 2016's new capacity. Part of the boom in renewables came because the tax incentives for their installation were in danger of expiring, so utilities rushed to get projects through the pipeline ahead of the end of the year. 9.5GW of capacity is expected to come online from solar -- more than the past three years combined. Another 6.8GW is expected from planned additions of wind power, largely spread across the Great Plains. Of new fossil fuel plants, the vast majority are going to be burning natural gas; there are no planned additions of coal plants.

Comments

Everyready

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear.

Re: Everyready

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm shuffling.

Re:Everyready

[Mr D from 63]

Another article talking 'capacity' but not talking about how many MWh's each source will actually produce. Capacity alone is a meaningless unit. Natural Gas is the biggest addition by far in terms of how much electricity will be produced.

Re:Everyready

[Ol Olsoc]

Another article talking 'capacity' but not talking about how many MWh's each source will actually produce. Capacity alone is a meaningless unit. Natural Gas is the biggest addition by far in terms of how much electricity will be produced.

First it was this is physically impossible.

then it was there isn't enough wind or solar - Germany is sunnier than the USA.

Now it's not about capacity, but how much is being produced at any given moment?

Hey - we'll get off your lawn, mister.

Re:Everyready

[Anonymous Coward]

You spout make-belief.

(1) It was never 'physically impossible', it was not very practical. It still isn't, but for the huge subsidies on both production and demand side.

(2) Germany has a surplus for a few hours. For the other part of the day, they import nuclear from France and Sweden.

(3) See above, yes, it is about capacity.

Now, get off my lawn, really.

Re:Everyready

[ClickOnThis]

First it was this is physically impossible.

First, they ignore us.

then it was there isn't enough wind or solar - Germany is sunnier than the USA.

Then they laugh at us.

Now it's not about capacity, but how much is being produced at any given moment?

Then they fight us.

Hey - we'll get off your lawn, mister.

Then we win.

Re:Everyready

[dbIII]

The thing is with thermal power you want to use it ALL while it is running instead of wasting that heat.

With nukes those fuel rods are decaying over time no matter what you do so that's another reason to have them run flat out until it's time to shut down for maintainance or refuelling.

Wind, gas, solar etc with their very small unit sizes and very low cost of keeping in reserve take up the slack. Opponents of those energy types like to pretend that such things are inferior because they are capable of being used that way.
So talk about totals in use is often comparing different use cases as if they are identical. In those situations it's either the act of an ignorant fanboy (eg. worshippers of 1970s nuke tech who say we should build dozens of nukes now instead of incremental improvement then dozens of nukes that may be half-decent) or deliberate lies. Stuff like that derails discussions especially when someone like the GP only talks about a single energy source in what is supposed to be a complementary mix.

Re:Everyready

[serviscope_minor]

With nukes those fuel rods are decaying over time no matter what you do so that's another reason to have them run flat out until it's time to shut down for maintainance or refuelling.

Technically, yes they decay, but no it doesn't actually have a significant effect. U235 (the fissile fuel in enriched uranium) has a half life of 700 million years, so even if you waited that long, you'd still have half the fuel left. MOX uses a mix of U235, Pu239, and U233. The shortest (Pu239) has a half life of 24,000 years, so even if you left it standing for 100 years, you'd still have 99.7% of the plutonium left. The other sort-of fuel is U238, which absorbs a neutron turning into Pu239 which is a fuel during the reactor operation. U238 has a half life of 4.5 billion years.

In other words, you can leave the fuel sitting around for human timescales without a problem or significant loss.

eg. worshippers of 1970s nuke tech who say we should build dozens of nukes now instead of incremental improvement then dozens of nukes that may be half-decent

I do wish we had 2010 eara nuke plants.

Re:Everyready

[Anonymous Coward]

Well. Although Natural Gas could have high capacity factors by technological reasons, the fact is that natural gas is lowering its capacity factor just cause renewable energy. Because natural gas is more, and more used only as a backup, and not low usage high peak backup, when batteries are better options, and mix renewable (hydro+solar+wind) are cheaper, so natural gas could only compete in a narrow windows times so it becomes more and more expensive (because it has less time for amortization) so soon batteries will be cheaper than gas.

Cogeneration and low windy winter dark days is the only days when natural gas has good capacity factores. On the rest of the year it will goes to less and less production each year.
And it goes to small, then biomass and hydro will fill the gap.

Re:Everyready

[thegarbz]

The second and third part of your comments are the same.

I propose stacked solar panels. We'll just put them on top of each other thus improving the capacity per square meter. No longer will our 1GW solar farm need several acres of land, we can do it in 1sqm with a sufficiently high tower.

Re:Everyready

[stevelinton]

With nukes those fuel rods are decaying over time no matter what you do so that's another reason to have them run flat out until it's time to shut down for maintainance or refuelling.

Technically, yes they decay, but no it doesn't actually have a significant effect. U235 (the fissile fuel in enriched uranium) has a half life of 700 million years, so even if you waited that long, you'd still have half the fuel left. MOX uses a mix of U235, Pu239, and U233. The shortest (Pu239) has a half life of 24,000 years, so even if you left it standing for 100 years, you'd still have 99.7% of the plutonium left. The other sort-of fuel is U238, which absorbs a neutron turning into Pu239 which is a fuel during the reactor operation. U238 has a half life of 4.5 billion years.

In other words, you can leave the fuel sitting around for human timescales without a problem or significant loss.

Unused fuel rods don't decay much, it's true, but once you start using them, they fill up with short-lived fission products which will decay and produce heat at a high level over days and weeks, even if you quench the fission reaction entirely. You have to remove that heat (which is why some form of cooling is needed in nuke plants for weeks after they shut down to stop the fuel melting or burning) and so it is economically very desirable to use it to generate power and to use that power.

So using a fission reactor to respond to day or week long variations in demand is horribly inefficient and expensive. Gas plant is much easier to start up and shut down, as in wind, while solar (PV to be specific) generates power when it does, but uses no fuel (except hydrogen in the core of the sun, which is not in shortage) so you can just dump the power.

Re:Everyready

[Anonymous Coward]

The cost of fuel in a nuclear power station is minimal - it's practically free. So while it is economically desirable to use it all, wasting some is no biggie....

Re:Everyready

[Mr D from 63]

First it was this is physically impossible.

then it was there isn't enough wind or solar - Germany is sunnier than the USA.

Can you provide a reference to any of those? I never heard those claims before. I think you just made them up in an attempt to sound clever.

If you don't care about actual production, then what do you care about?

Re:Everyready

[serviscope_minor]

Good point.

Re:Everyready

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I agree.

First it was "tons of flour doesn't matter", what matters is how many tones each acre makes. Amount of flour alone is a meaningless unit. Corn meal is the biggest addition by far in terms of how much (again not by acre) flour will be produced.

Now the way I see it is that we have more, which can feed (power) more. The costs of obtaining more hasn't yet been felt in a way that requires rethinking, and whether we are making more per acre (or unit of time) is an interesting question, but it ignores the basic fact we have more.

Consider that we have more capacity, there are only 24 hours in a day, or only a fixed amount of time in a time interval, so it would stand to reason that we would also have more per unit of time. If you can find one time interval such that adding to the numerator of the fraction of power doesn't yield a greater power yield, then let's talk.

Re:Everyready

[Anonymous Coward]

"Germany is Sunnier than the USA" was an argument against solar in the US made on Fox News a couple of years ago. They argued that "there is more solar in Germany because they get more sun that we do in the US"

This is what the post was referring to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fe3vxu9vxAQ

Re:Everyready

[Maury Markowitz]

> It still isn't, but for the huge subsidies on both production and demand side

Ugh. Another claim utterly devoid of numbers presented as if it's true. This is in spite of the numbers being in the linked article and trivially easy to compute. DO THE FUGGING MATH. Here are the production-adjusted CAPEXs:

Natgas: $1.00 / .45 CF = $2.22 effective
Wind: $1.50 / .35 CF = $4.30 effective
Solar: $1.50 / .20 CF = $7.50 effective
Nuclear: $8.00 / .95 = $8.40 effective

That means wind is about double the expensive of a CC plant to build, yet has zero fuel costs. In comparison, nuclear costs twice as much as wind, and also has fuel costs on top of that (and the highest O&M of all of these).

If you want to consider all-in numbers from CAPEX to power price, that's a little more complex. However, NREL has done all the work for you:

http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/tech_lcoe.html

If you go to the page it is pre-set for the natural gas case, but it has an outdated price for the fuel from 2013. Reducing fuel cost to the current EIA average of 2.5 $//MMbtu produces an LCOE of 5.2 cents/kWh. If you then change the inputs for wind, CF 34%, CAPEX 1500, zero variable, zero heating rate, zero fuel cost) the equivalent cost is 4.1 cents/kWh. For PV it's the same 1500 CAPEX, but the period is 25 years, CF is 25, and O&M is 12. That gives you 4.5 cents/kWh. My 12 panels have a CF of only 15, which gives 7.4 cents.

So basically these technologies are perfectly capable of competing on their own, which is precisely why they are, by far, the fastest growing power sources in the world. Only in the US is that not *overwhelmingly* the case, and that's because of the subsidized price of natgas. Natgas received about 1/2 the subsidies of solar or wind during the last 5 years, and that's only because of the accelerating rate of production tax breaks on the later two:

https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/

But that's the US centric view. For a real idea of what's going on you'd want to look at the world as a whole, add everything up, and then come up with the averages. Which is precisely what Lazard has been doing once a year for the last nine. Here is everything you need to know, up to date as of last October:

https://www.lazard.com/media/2390/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-analysis-90.pdf

Re:Everyready

[silentcoder]

I know you're joking but we are actually doing that in a way. The upper limit of efficiency for a solar cell is about 30% - and we're still about 10% below that on even the best experimental designs.
So how do we make solar panels that have higher efficiency than that ? By layering cells on top of each other, so the second layer will use some of the photons that the first layer let through etc. etc.
I believe (but I may be wrong) that the common commercial panels these days use three-layer cells.

Re:Everyready

[Maury Markowitz]

> So using a fission reactor to respond to day or week long variations in demand is horribly inefficient and expensive

That depends on the plant design. The US midwest does just this because they're using the Westinghouse reactors that throttle daily. France does it because they have all of their plants on a national grid and can do some really fancy load following that wouldn't be possible elsewhere.

Re:Everyready

[Maury Markowitz]

> I believe (but I may be wrong) that the common commercial panels these days use three-layer cells.

You are wrong. The VAST majority of cells are single-layer silicon. There are a few exceptions, but they are used solely in niche applications - Unisolar's three-layer aSi was flexible (was, they are now bankrupt), while Boeing and Emcore make three-layer GaAs cells for aerospace use. Practically everything else is a single layer, whether it be Si or CdTe.

Re:Everyready

[Maury Markowitz]

> First it was this is physically impossible.

The idea that renewables cannot supply power 24/7 and that the grid could not handle a fully renewables is trivially easy to find. I assume you simply couldn't be bothered to google it because many examples come up in the first page of hits:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323699704578328581251122150
http://www.businessinsider.com/green-energy-isnt-compatible-with-us-power-grid-2013-12
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/dec/02/nation/la-na-grid-renewables-20131203

And my favourite:

http://www.zdnet.com/article/designing-the-grid-for-renewables/

Which starts with "Americans have been repeatedly told a series of lies about accommodating renewables onto the power grid: That it can't handle large amounts of intermittent power generation. That standby fossil-fueled capacity must be maintained at 100 percent of demand for those times when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. That brownouts and blackouts will inevitably result from depending on renewables. That nuclear is the only power source that can meet our needs in the future. And so on."

This has, of course, been widely debunked by, literally, hundreds of studies.

> Germany is sunnier than the USA.

This was a widely spread meme from a while back, the argument being made that it is not possible for the US to replicate Germany's policies because Germany is sunnier, which is, of course, very much opposite of the truth:

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/02/08/fox-news-can-you-get-any-more-insane-germany-is-sunnier-than-the-us-video/

If you're not even aware of *this* story, you're clearly not interested in the power industry, which leads me to ask why are you here?

Re:Everyready

[stevelinton]

Do you have links? I'd be interested in knowing more about the Westinghouse designs in particular.

Re:Everyready

[Mr D from 63]

I don't see anywhere saying it is physically impossible, and frankly today's renewables depend heavily on non-renewable to make up for their intermittent.

By the way, solar capacity factor in Germany is still around 10%, and their best solar plants only reach around 13 or 14%.

Re:Everyready

[Smidge204]

The inefficiency is not in in photos going through un-absorbed, but a consequence of thermodynamics: Solar panels get hot, and heat reduces their efficiency. You can even see this effect in action: manufacturers publish data on their panels on how their open circuit voltage varies with temperature! This is important to know when designing systems since, on a really cold day, system voltages can get high enough to damage equipment if not taken into consideration.

IIRC the only work done on multi-layer PV was attempting to tune the cells to work optimally for specific wavelengths, and stacking very thin layers sensitive to different wavelengths in an attempt to capture a broader range of the spectrum. I don't think this has ever panned out since you don't hear much about it anymore.
=Smidge=

Re:Everyready

[Ol Olsoc]

You spout make-belief.

(1) It was never 'physically impossible', it was not very practical.

Depends on who you were talking to. A lot of folks I've dealt with in that past considered lead-acid cells the alpha and Omega of electric vehicles, IOW, golf carts.

It still isn't, but for the huge subsidies on both production and demand side.

We'll chat about that after the subsidies go away for all.

(2) Germany has a surplus for a few hours. For the other part of the day, they import nuclear from France and Sweden.

That's how progress works. None of this stuff spouts fully formed from the ocean like Venus, and if we demand it does, we won't get anywhere.

While once upon a time we had some things like Bell Labs doing research, modern US corporatism is too risk averse to fund basic science and startups that are as likely to fail as succeed.

But as more and more of this activity is shifted to countries who are willing to put in the basic research, we'll just sit back and become an also-ran.

Re:Everyready

[Anonymous Coward]

GP backs up his claims. You do not. FAIL.

Re:Everyready

[Ol Olsoc]

Then we win.

One of my favorites!

It's just a shame there are so many buggy whippers on Slashdot.

Meanwhile, the solar panels and wind turbines go up. Meanwhile they go on line. Meanwhile the EV's roll out. And if you dont like them, its okay to lie: http://techland.time.com/2013/...

I think this pretty much sums up the state of the altenergy deniers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

That should be an obligitory link on all of these threads.

Re:Everyready

[Ol Olsoc]

In those situations it's either the act of an ignorant fanboy (eg. worshippers of 1970s nuke tech who say we should build dozens of nukes now instead of incremental improvement then dozens of nukes that may be half-decent) or deliberate lies. Stuff like that derails discussions especially when someone like the GP only talks about a single energy source in what is supposed to be a complementary mix.

The contrariness is probably a little bit of both. I often get bitchslapped based on my ideas for modern nuc power stations, as in small, least stressed designs in many locations. That has the advantage of safer design, less loss over the lines, and strategic robustness. But no, we have to make them balls to the wall, and as few as possible. It was a lot of fun arguing with my nucE friends. Those guys I can have a good discussion with. In here it tends toward me just being called a jerk or worse. Or a scientific racist! Had to work that in.....

Re:Everyready

[sycodon]

I wonder how much Wind would cost if every wind installation faced numerous lawsuits at every stage of construction, as well as environment studies that take 5 years to complete and are litigated multiple times.

Nuclear is expensive because people have succeeded in making it expensive.

Re:Everyready

[Anonymous Coward]

Will you be winning at 3AM on a 12 degree night with no wind?

Re:Everyready

[Jeremi]

I wonder how much Wind would cost if every wind installation faced numerous lawsuits

It would cost a lot more. But wind faces less opposition, because if a wind turbine fails, nobody gets irradiated and no land gets poisoned.

Nuclear is expensive because people have succeeded in making it expensive.

And rightly so -- people succeeded in making it expensive because if it ever fails, it's an unrecoverable disaster that renders entire counties uninhabitable. The one thing you don't want is a a cheap, shoddy, half-assed nuclear plant that was built by the lowest bidder.

Re:Everyready

[sycodon]

Most lawsuits don't have anything to do with the actual construction or safety, but with the bureaucratic process.

Don't dot the I's or cross the T's and it's millions and millions in delays. It's a game the environmentalists have learned well. And wind, if subjected to the same abuse would see skyrocketing costs.

Re:Everyready

[MachineShedFred]

Update your figures. There are no less than 3 companies manufacturing panels above 20% efficiency, two of which are shipping in volume:

http://www.greentechmedia.com/...

Panasonic and SunPower are at 22.x% efficiency and shipping. SolarCity / Silevo have manufactured at small scale a 22% panel, and are building a HUGE factory in New York to mass produce.

Re: Everyready

[fyngyrz]

You're such a card.

Re:Everyready

[fyngyrz]

You know, there's also this thing called "insulation." All you have to do if you want to be adequately warm (or cool, for that matter) without requiring a lot of energy is not build your dwelling with the idea that it's perfectly ok to allow heat to leak between your building's interior and the great outdoors. The tech is fully up to it, and it isn't even expensive. it *does* require actual thinking, so we don't see it much, but to imply that one must shiver or sweat "because wind/solar"... it just isn't true.

Re:Everyready

[fyngyrz]

what matters is how many tones each acre makes.

Okay. Just so I'm clear, now we're talking about wind chimes per chain-furlong, is that right?

Re:Everyready

[Ol Olsoc]

First it was this is physically impossible.

then it was there isn't enough wind or solar - Germany is sunnier than the USA.

Can you provide a reference to any of those? I never heard those claims before. I think you just made them up in an attempt to sound clever.

I think I didn't make that up just to sound clever. I gave the link below in another post, but ask and you shall receive again:

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/...

And of course, the issue is that once on Fox, there are a lot of people who take it as gospel truth.

In fact, Germany recieves a remarkably small amount of solar insolation, similar to coastal Alaska in the USA.

In short, I've been told in the past that in the middle of Pennsylvania - another cloudy place, that it would be impossible to use photovoltaics.

If you don't care about actual production, then what do you care about?

I care about production, but I don't pay much attention to the concept that the present situation, whatever it is, is static, and will remain so forever and ever, world without end, amen.

That sort of viewpoint would have us still using stone olive oil lamps and oxcarts, because all of the technology after that wasn't 100 percent perfect from inception.

Re:Everyready

[ilguido]

Now it's not about capacity, but how much is being produced at any given moment?

It always was about how much is being produced, so I don't really know what you're talking about. Do you remember all those discussions about the problems of intermittent energy sources, non-dispatchable generation, power quality etc.? Those are about the same problem under different names, and those were discussed since the beginning.

And it's not only about how much, but also when: in 2010/2011 there were a lot of articles about wind turbines in the U.K. producing electricity when there was no need of it (and at the time the installed capacity was quite low) and so the government had to pay to halt them or had to buy energy it had no use for (and which can cause problems to the grid). For reference: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-sco... || http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... It

Re:Everyready

[Mr D from 63]

So, you pick up on one snippet and apply it to everyone who speaks the actual facts? That is you attempt at a clever deflection. I never said, nor do I know of anyone who typically discusses these topics with any insight, that Germany is sunnier than the US. It certainly is not and I have actually given Germany's specific insolation facts out on this site many times in the past, only for solar fanboys to tell me that they don't believe Germany's actual average solar CF is about 10%. In short, I've brought forth the true facts on this long ago. You are right, Germany isn't a great place for solar. Some folks here will disagree vehemently, but avoid backing up with any real data.

So stop your deflection. Solar doesn't perform any better or worse due to some news snippet, it doesn't make any kind of case other than show some inherent need for deflection on your part. I've seem tons of erroneous and misleading claims from reporters on TV and elsewhere about solar and wind's capabilities, and complete ignorance to what 'capacity' even means. You seem to think that is OK.

But at least I've seen you have back off on the claim that many were calling renewables usage 'physically impossible'. Nobody that matters ever said such a thing. I actually have spoken about my belief that solar and wind have an important role in our future energy mix. But I also am not afraid to talk about the things that matter, and there are costs and challenges when dealing with the indeterminacy and unreliability of some renewables. Those are undeniable facts. You can ignore them, as well as the true meaning of 'capacity' as much as you like.

Re:Everyready

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you provide a reference to any of those?

Your posts would be a lot more persuasive if you would do the same. As it is, you don't seem to provide much to support your claims either.

Re:Everyready

[angel'o'sphere]

With nukes those fuel rods are decaying over time no matter what you do so that's another reason to have them run flat out until it's time to shut down for maintainance or refuelling.
If the rods are outside of the reactor, or the control rods are, or the opposite, depending how your reactor works: the fuel in the rods does not decay in any meaningfull time in relation to a human lifetime.

Re:Everyready

[angel'o'sphere]

There is no real upper limit for the efficiency of solar cells (except you take 100% as the limit).
Commercial cells are all around 20%. High end cells (galium arsenid or telurium based) are between 40% to 45%.
Multiple layers wont help. Convertion of photons into electricity depends on 'the colour' of the light. It is not so that half if the photons miss, and can be used in another layer. I is so that most photons 'don't fit' to cause an electron to jump into the current ...
Was that layman enough?

Re:Everyready

[angel'o'sphere]

but a consequence of thermodynamics: Solar panels get hot, and heat reduces their efficiency.
No it is not. Especially it has nothing to do with "Laws of Thermodynamics" at all.
PV cells are inefficient because they only work for a certain "colour of the light" ... all photons of the wrong colour can not knock an electron out of its 'house' to provide current.
Higher temperatures might catch back such an electron, so efficiency drops (nearly unnoticeable). Despite the fact that the word 'temperature' is involved: that has nothing to do with LoTD.

Re:Everyready

[angel'o'sphere]

Wind power is usually build at places where no one is around to complain or file a case.
So your request is complete pointless, if not idiotic.

Re:Everyready

[angel'o'sphere]

And what exactly do you want to tell us with noting CFs of german solar plants (which are wrong, btw)?
For me your statement: By the way, solar capacity factor in Germany is still around 10%, and their best solar plants only reach around 13 or 14%. bears no meaning. It is as if I would say: at night it is colder than outside.

Re:Everyready

[angel'o'sphere]

There are plenty if links where you can watch Germanies import and export of power in real time ;)

You are an idiot.

Re:Everyready

[angel'o'sphere]

Germany is far more south than 'coastal Alaska'.

Re:Everyready

[wyHunter]

You cannot call 'gas' a renewable energy.

Re:Everyready

[Smidge204]

No it is not. Especially it has nothing to do with "Laws of Thermodynamics" at all.

Solar PV cells are energy conversion devices and are absolutely subject to thermodynamic efficiency limits. At no point is the conversion of photon to electrical potential energy 100% efficient, nor can it be.

If photons below the band gap threshold can't be absorbed, that's just another problem hindering efficiency in a practical application.

And yes, the efficiency of a PV cell is dependent on temperature: Actively cooled panels perform better than passively cooled panels. Output voltage can vary by as much as 10-15% during winter-summer swings (higher in winter). Current for the same lighting intensity varies slightly in the opposite direction, but overall you get more power from cold panels all else being equal.

The theoretical limit of a single silicon P-N junction cell is ~32%. If you change the temperature of the material, the band gap changes and the efficiency changes accordingly. If you don't plan for that, you're likely going to have a very bad time.
=Smidge=

Re:Everyready

[angel'o'sphere]

Solar PV cells are energy conversion devices and are absolutely subject to thermodynamic efficiency limits.
No they are not, as they are not 'thermodynamic devices'. Care to point out which formula of TLoTD coveres them? Can't be so hard, there are only 7, non involves frequency, voltage, ampere or anything related to electric current.

At no point is the conversion of photon to electrical potential energy 100% efficient, nor can it be.
First of all, TLoTD have nothing to do with "100% efficiency", secondly: yes, the photo electric effect is "100% efficient", like any effect that is covered by "the law of energy conversation".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

And yes, the efficiency of a PV cell is dependent on temperature: Actively cooled panels perform better than passively cooled panels. Obviously. As I pointed out in my previous post. And obviously that has nothing to do with TLoTD.

The theoretical limit of a single silicon P-N junction cell is ~32%.
Copy pasting stuff everyone knows does not help you comprehending it. First of all: that is for Silicium cells. Secondly, as I said before: it only means that only a certain wavelength aka "colour" of photons is absorbed (which is roughly 32% of all colours, and as I said before: GaAs cells have an 'efficiency' of roughly 45% ... ) and thirdly: again this has nothing to do with TLoTD. It is quantum mechanics, another completely different realm of physics :)

Read a book ... the hint I always give. Or the relevant wikipedia articles :)

Re:Everyready

[Mr D from 63]

You can take what you want from the correct facts I presented.

Re:Everyready

[WolfWithoutAClause]

> The upper limit of efficiency for a solar cell is about 30% - and we're still about 10% below that on even the best experimental designs.

Wrong. Solar sells have already been built that are ~45% or more efficient.

FWIW the upper theoretical limit is over 90%. The reason that solar panels don't do that right now is because you have to tune the solar panel to the colours of light you want to collect; and you'd have to construct the panel to absorb equally well in each range, and that's hard. The high performing panels collect several ranges to achieve those higher figures.

The reason why the theoretical limit is over 90% is because of Carnot- the temperature associated with the light which hits the panel is that of the sun, which is very, very hot, and the waste heat is emitted at ambient temperature.

Re:Everyready

[DanielRavenNest]

> I believe (but I may be wrong) that the common commercial panels these days use three-layer cells.

Only in space, where the efficiency gain is worth a lot more. Terrestrial panels are typically multi-crystalline silicon, which is cheaper to make than mono-crystalline. Some places use mono-crystalline, because it has a bit higher efficiency, and therefore higher output when space is limited, such as on a rooftop. You can track the best "research cell" efficiencies at http://www.nrel.gov/ncpv/image... (the chart is frequently updated). Between research and mass production at the lowest cost there is a variable time delay, usually years.

Re:Everyready

[Ol Olsoc]

So, you pick up on one snippet and apply it to everyone who speaks the actual facts? That is you attempt at a clever deflection.

My my, but after you accusing me of lying, you are a bit of a sensitive little snowflake ani't ya?

I merely gave a little throwaway statement, you accused me of making it up - lying - and I provided the citation.

Yes, Germany isn't a terribly good place to be doing solar energy. However unlike many here in the USA, they have not declared perfection the enemy of good.

Now if you wanted to have an actual conversation we could. We could talk about concentrator photovoltaics, we could discuss whether the technology is frozen at this point, with costs remaining forever the same, efficiences never to be exceeded.

We could discuss if batteries are also at their zenith.

Then we could discuss if gas and petroleum are inexhaustible resources.

Then we could discuss the actual costs of nuclear power - and I am not anti nuc, I just would like it's fans to be a little more honest about it. Okay, a lot more honest.

But something tells me you might be a little sensitive about seeing anything you disagree with, and need to insult people by calling them liars.

Re:Everyready

[Smidge204]

Well if you see fit to use Wikipedia as a reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

"However, solar cells operate as quantum energy conversion devices, and are therefore subject to the "thermodynamic efficiency limit"."

Click through the link in the article for more.
=Smidge=

Re:Everyready

[Mr D from 63]

I accused you of clever deflection, not of lying, but of assigning an argument to "them" which really doesn't exist in any reasonable form, you showed as much when you could only refer to an old Fox News snippett. I guess you just hang on to that for defensive purposes. No you deflect more with talk of batteries and such. The topic at hand is the use of 'capacity' in the stupid manner in which it is presented.

And I am not sure why you brought up nuclear power. What does that have to do with the consistent misused of the term 'capacity'? What do batteries or anything else you mention have to do with the abuse of the term "capacity"? I think you just don't understand that term either, at least you've shown no indication you do.

Re:Everyready

[Ol Olsoc]

Germany is far more south than 'coastal Alaska'.

Yes, it is. It is a pretty cloudy place however. Coastal Alaska isn't exactly in the sunshine belt for certain, and as you note, the latitude difference makes for a lot less intensity. Solar is bottom of the barrel fringe useful in Alaska, but the total insolation is the same. Those long winter nights would keep me from installing solar there.

In the end, I think that alternative energy systems are really best tailored to the locale. Here where I live, the Allegheny front is nearby, and a lot of wind turbines have gone up, and more planned. In some places solar is obvious. Where we vacation during the summer, panels are everywhere. In some other places, it's hard to find a local alt energy source.

There's where I get into trouble with most everyone. I'm envisioning a small nuc reactor power generator like the Ill fated SL-1, only with modernized safety features.

Re:Everyready

[Ol Olsoc]

You cannot call 'gas' a renewable energy.

After my lunch today, I'm not so certain.

Re:Everyready

[dbIII]

Shutting down to refuel costs a lot - thus nowhere near "practically free" so while it's hot you want to get as much of that heat to do something as you can. Thus base load and full output.

Re:Everyready

[dbIII]

France has a lot of hydro they use to fill in the gaps and do not load follow with their nuclear reactors. If it's not running it's either a planned shutdown (days or weeks) or broken.

Re:Everyready

[dbIII]

Remember what happened with the removed fuel rods in pools at Fukishima when the water dried up? It's not just one element in those things after a bit of use so there is a lot of decay producing heat and the fuel becomes a lot less active and a lot less useful as a fuel over time. Remember it's not about going down to zero radioactivity as your "human lifetime" comment implies, but about going below the design threshold and the point where it is worth refuelling.

Re:Everyready

[dbIII]

modern nuc power stations, as in small, least stressed designs in many locations

That was the idea after TMI but there has been so little work done that we've seen nothing along those lines other than pebble bed. Lots of little reactors can still produce vast amounts of steam for a turbine. You don't need to have one enormous reactor per turbine unit as in the 1970s designs.
Isn't it a bit of a slap in the face that South Africa has more advanced civilian nuclear reactor technology than the USA? The nuclear lobby just sat on their 1970s dinosaurs and have paid far more for PR than R&D. They even opposed government funded thorium research because they had sunk their money into uranium and saw potential new designs as a threat.

Re:Everyready

[Shirley Marquez]

Cape Wind is a wind project that has faced exactly these problems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Everyready

[wyHunter]

Too true!

Re:Everyready

[angel'o'sphere]

It's not just one element in those things after a bit of use so there is a lot of decay producing heat and the fuel becomes a lot less active and a "lot less useful as a fuel over time."
No it does not. You are mixing several things up.
You can store a fuel rod for hundreds of thousands of years and still use it as if no time had passed.

Re:Everyready

[angel'o'sphere]

I doubt that the insolation is the same. How should it?

Yes, it is. It is a pretty cloudy place however. Germany? Certainly not. You might mix it up with England or the UK in general.

Re:Everyready

[angel'o'sphere]

Which means some idiot has again mis-edited the wikipedia article.

Obviously two terms like "quantum energy" (what ever that means, it should be "quantum mechanics") and "thermodynamic" don't fit in the same sentence. Perhaps your school knowledge does not make that "obvious" to you.

Either we are talking about thermodynamics or we are talking about quantum mechanics. Solar cells are the later, not the former. Both realms of physics have nothing to do with each other.

However if wikipedia articles are so wrong now, no wonder that you make your claims according to them.

I suggest to read the wikipedia articles about thermo dynamics (very bad meanwhile, too), and you easy see: there is no single law or formula applicable to solar panels.

Re:Everyready

[angel'o'sphere]

If something is incorrect, it is not a fact.

Work a bit on your semantics plx.

No one is building a 10% CF solar plant, sorry. Something like that might be remotely useable for a house owner who wants to have a roof top installation that makes him money during a certain period of a day/year. But no big plat like this exists in Germany.

Re:Everyready

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't most of Germany's wind farm along the coast? I have lived on many different coasts, they all have one thing in common: near constant winds.

Re:Everyready

[Anonymous Coward]

Germany is roughly the size of Montana.

That trivially proves that the US gets more sunlight than Germany.

Re:Everyready

[Smidge204]

Yes... someone edited a wiki article with incorrect information. Not only that, there's an entire page dedicated to the incorrect concept, including citations. The nerve of some people.

And the problem only gets worse! If you google "thermodynamics of photovoltaics" it seems hundreds, possibly thousands of researchers have been duped by a malicious wikipedia edit, publishing all sorts of scholarly papers analyzing photovoltaic cells from a thermodynamics perspective. Good lord, man, you should get a Nobel in Physics for your ground-breaking refutations!

Or... and hear me out on this... OR: You're wrong.

"Read a book" I believe was your advice. That's good advice, too; shame you apparently never practice what you preach.
=Smidge=

Re:Everyready

[Smidge204]

In fact, let me even offer a book to read:

Physics of Solar Cells: From Basic Principles to Advanced Concepts
Peter Wurfel
Wiley Publishing, ISBN: 978-3-527-40857

Enjoy!
=Smidge=

Re:Everyready

[Ol Olsoc]

I doubt that the insolation is the same. How should it?

Yes, it is. It is a pretty cloudy place however. Germany? Certainly not. You might mix it up with England or the UK in general.

Here's a link to a decent comparison.

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/f...

The irradiance graphics are on Page 2.

Amazingly enough, there are PV installations in service in Alaska. I was surprised, because I've only been there once, but yeah, those winter nights are long. But then again, so are the summer days.

But the Alaskan's I met were as likely to install a pv system just to prove a person wrong. Regardless, they tend to integrate with diesel generators.

I'm a complete solar slut, but I'm surprised at this.

Re:Everyready

[dbIII]

You can store a NEW fuel rod for years. Once it goes in a reactor close to other rods then other elements form which kick off a lot of extra activity and the clock starts ticking.

Re:Everyready

[dbIII]

I suggest you look at stevelinton's post since he puts the situation quite clearly.

Re:Everyready

[Jeremi]

Don't dot the I's or cross the T's and it's millions and millions in delays. It's a game the environmentalists have learned well. And wind, if subjected to the same abuse would see skyrocketing costs.

Sure, and if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. It's nuclear power's demonstrated ability to seriously screw things up that allows its opponents to slow nuclear development. Wind won't be subject to that level of scrutiny unless/until wind power somehow forces entire cities to be permanently evacuated.

Re:Everyready

[Mr D from 63]

You dont understand. The average CF for all solar pv in germany in 2014 was around 10%. That means some installtions are higher, some lower.

Re:Everyready

[angel'o'sphere]

We are not talking about the performance of solar cells under heat.
We are talking about the fact: it has nothing to do with thermodynamics.

So thank you for the link of the book: I doubt it mentions thermodynamics at all!

Re:Everyready

[angel'o'sphere]

For starters: you correctly pointed out "if a solar cell gets hot" it is less efficient. Right? Oki, then please remember the next sentence:

[1] If a thermodynamic system gets hotter as in you increase the temperature they get more efficient. The interesting part is the last bold part. More precisely, as the temperature difference between the cold reservoir and the hot reservoir increases, the efficiency increases.

That was thermodynamics 101 in a one sentence.

No the remaining summary: Thermodynamics is about the tripple: "pressure", "temperature" and "volume" of "ideal gases". As far as I can tell: solar cells don't work with gas.

And if you want to impress friends: the most important "discovery" in "thermodynamics" is: entropy increases over time. That actually is happening in PV cells, the so called "degrading" over decades. The doted atoms move from their perfect position to less perfect ones, like sugar dissolving in water. However: that is not the effect you talked about.

So, the summary in case you once have to write a test in physics:
Thermodynamics is especially about heat engines as examples are:
Steam Engines (to design steam engines, the topic thermodynamics was born, and its usefulness in related ares like deep diving with pressure flasks discovered, and the fridge was invented ... they work all the same ...)
Internal Combustion Engines
Stirling Engines
Steam Turbines
Etc.

Note: this excludes e.g. electric engines.

If someone is mentioning "thermodynamics" outside of those areas: you can bet he is 99% of the time wrong.

So, coming back to the (your) very first sentence: [2] If the solar cells get hot, their efficiency decrease.

Obviously [1] and [2] contradict each other. In other words: your claim contradicts the laws of Thermodynamics, and nevertheless you want to use them to support your claim. Even you should realize: this makes no sense.

Now if you did not grasp my last posts: the efficiency loss is due to "Brownian motion" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

If a solar cell is "cold" the atoms swing only slightly. Electrons that get kicked out of the shell of the silicon atoms can travel in the "conductive band". The colder the cell the more freely electrons can travel there.
Why? Because if the cell gets hotter, the brownian motion is more intense, and atoms randomly crash into the electrons and recapture them. Hence: less current. Aka: less efficiency. Conclusion: wow, what a surprise: not a thermodynamic effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Again: except for the unfortunate entropy increases over time effect, there is no thermodynamics at all involved in solar cells. And definitely not in calculation or measuring their electric efficiency.

Thanx for your patience. If you came so far, read the rest.

However, physicists have a hobby: they try to drag thermodynamics into everything. E.g. you could express the brownian movement of the atoms in terms of a "ideal gas". You also "could" express the moving electrons in the conducting band as an "idealized gas of electrons". And then you could try to "calculate" the pressure and temperature of those gases by "observing" how many electrons get captures. Obviously "pressure" and "temperature" have no meaning in such situations. But it is fun to write papers over such topics.

Re:Everyready

[angel'o'sphere]

Interesting graphic.
The german one is correct, can not tell for the Alaska one.

As a layman I had assumed arctic winter and arctic summer cancel each other out and bottom line you have less total energy due to the latitude.

Interesting that this is not the case. That would be a extremely good situation for heat storage and heat pumps instead of PV.

Re:Everyready

[angel'o'sphere]

Only if it is actually "burning" otherwise obviously not. Hence a control rod is "moderating" its neutrons or the neighbouring rods neutrons.

Re:Everyready

[angel'o'sphere]

I understand ;D

But 10% sound rather low, so lets see: [1] https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/... (page 5: 38.5 TWh production)

Wikipedia says we have 40.000 MW that is 40GW installed, wikipedia says 32.8 TWh production (versus the fraunhofer link above). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

So, 8760hours * 40.000 MW = 350400000 MWh that is the theoretical max. if the sun would shine 24h. That is 350400 GWh, or 350.4 TWh. So with either 32.8TW (wikipedia) or 38.5TWh (fraunhofer) we are indeed in the 10% range of CF. I stand corrected, (bow).

Another interesting read: [2] https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/...

Or a top level site: https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/...

Re:Everyready

[Smidge204]

[1] If a thermodynamic system gets hotter as in you increase the temperature they get more efficient.

No: Thermodynamic efficiency is based on the DIFFERENCE in temperature.

You are trying so hard to salvage this you can't even get the basics right anymore. Nothing of what you said is even coherent. It's not even wrong. We're done here.
=Smidge=

Re:Everyready

[Mr D from 63]

I am familiar with the Fraunhofer data, that is what I use because they have really good, accurate data. (Some Fraunhofer data is sometimes presented as Jan-Nov for some reason, so you have to be careful and if so use 234 days instead of 365, but also consider that December is a pretty poor month)

One reason, I believe, for the low CF is that a lot of residential panels are installed in sub-optimal orientation, parallel with the roof.

Re:Everyready

[angel'o'sphere]

One reason, I believe, for the low CF is that a lot of residential panels are installed in sub-optimal orientation, parallel with the roof.
Yes, a hughe deal is simply put flat on the roof side which faces more south ward. And thus has what ever compas direction that roof is facing and what ever slope the roof has.
Only flat rooves usuall use tilted panels that are directed to a place the owner and the grid company agreed on.
Or in other words: if your panels don't point due south you get more subsidicing than if they do (because a big deal favoures south, early adopers)
In other words, a panel that goes lets say 10 degrees less than due west or 10 degrees more than due east will make nearly as much power as one aiming south, but at a different time of the day.

Re:Everyready

[angel'o'sphere]

No: Thermodynamic efficiency is based on the DIFFERENCE in temperature.
Yes, and that is clearly written in the next sentence after the sentence you quoted ;)

You are trying so hard to salvage this you can't even get the basics right anymore.
My basics are all right.
You fail to read or to grasp.
A solar cell is not a thermodynamic system. Plain and simple. Hence it is not restricted by the laws of thermodynamics.
For starters: it neither uses temperature nor pressure of idealized gases to perform work.

Can't not be so hard to understand.

Re:Everyready

[Smidge204]

Dude, listen to yourself.

"is not restricted by the laws of thermodynamics"

Seriously?

" it neither uses temperature nor pressure of idealized gases to perform work"

Wrong. PV cells exploit the temperature difference between the surface of the sun and ambient. Black body radiation is an important part of the Shockley-Queisser limit, and is a major part of why concentrated PV is more efficient than flat panels.

If you have no temperature difference, then you have no net radiative transfer, and thus you have no potential for photon absorption, and thus no ability to extract useful work.

I'm sure you never learned this in whatever podunk high school intro to physics class you've had, but the laws of thermodynamics are not the same thing as gas laws. Efficiency of energy conversion as a function of the energy gradient is true regardless of the type of conversion or forms of energy involved. In ANY system, you need a source of energy ("high temperature") to tap into and a sink of energy ("low temperature") into which you can dump the excess entropy, and so keep the useful energy portion as work.

As such, ALL energy conversion systems are subject to the laws of thermodynamics.

Maybe not the gas laws, but absolutely the laws of thermodynamics. You'll note that Carnotâ(TM)s theorem has nothing in it about gasses...
=Smidge=

Re:Everyready

[angel'o'sphere]

Wrong. PV cells exploit the temperature difference between the surface of the sun and ambient.
No, they don't.

Discussion over, you are an complete idiot. Waste of time to tell you stuff.

Important announcement --

[Anonymous Coward]

Tonight I'm announcing my official endorsement of Bernie Sanders for president. I'll be glad to answer any questions you may have regarding my decision, but please keep it civil.

Re:Important announcement --

[Anonymous Coward]

FUCK YOU YOU COMMUNIST BASTARD!

fuck the fucking filter, fuck the fucking filter, fuck the fucking filter, fuck the fucking filter, fuck the fucking filter

Re:Important announcement --

[Anonymous Coward]

Like yours, my parents were married. Unlike yours, it was to each other.

Re:Important announcement --

[Ol Olsoc]

Brothers and sisters aren't allowed to get married, silly.

Clean Coal

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure what all the hate is about concerning coal. Clean coal technology is carbon neutral and actually much better for the environment that producing solar panels (which require massive amounts of energy and dangerous chemicals). I have don't know of any solar power factory that is powered by solar panels.

We actually replaced two electric furnaces in our house with a pair of coal stoves. Contrary to what you may think, it doesn't soot up the house or smell, etc. It's a very high quality of heat, and very clean.

I intent to replace my mother's furnace with a coal stove this July.

Re: Clean Coal

[Anonymous Coward]

Shill and idiot. You're stove took energy to produce too. And you know what it doesn't produce clean energy. Where as solar does.

Re: Clean Coal

[jandersen]

Shill and idiot. You're stove took energy to produce too. And you know what it doesn't produce clean energy. Where as solar does.

Like you, I disagree strongly with the idea that coal is somehow 'cleaner' than solar energy etc, but I don't think it is justified to start calling people idiots for stating their views, even if they appear uninformed. But what I REALLY take issue with is when people are modded 'Troll' simply because they have a different opinion; that is the stupidest way to respond, no better than schoolyard bullying. Insults and bullying can only hurt the viewpoint you appear to be supporting.

Re: Clean Coal

[Anonymous Coward]

The Smartest Book About Our Digital Age Was Published in 1929

Re:Clean Coal

[Maury Markowitz]

> Clean coal technology is carbon neutral

a) it doesn't exist
b) no it isn't, obviously.

> actually much better for the environment that producing solar panels

No it isn't, as has been widely and repeatedly demonstrated.

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf

> massive amounts of energy and dangerous chemicals

Neither is true. A cleanser used in the factory is a hazardous material, but it is contained within the factory (unless you believe the stories from China) and has no downstream risk.

http://solarindustrymag.com/online/issues/SI1309/FEAT_05_Hazardous_Materials_Used_In_Silicon_PV_Cell_Production_A_Primer.html

> We actually replaced two electric furnaces in our house with a pair of coal stoves

Which isn't clean coal by any means. However, given that heating coal is actually rather hard to get in lots of places these days I'm guessing you're writing from Ireland or the UK. Having been coal heated in the former, and having to suffer through continuous asthma as a result, anyone describing coal as clean is having a serious case of cognitive dissonance, is lying, is a shill, a troll, or some combination thereof.

Re:Clean Coal

[MachineShedFred]

You are still burning carbon chains, and that carbon is still going up the pipe. You are still releasing different oxidized gases. You are still letting lose unscrubbed particulate matter. And, that coal isn't just found laying on the ground somewhere, it still has to be dug out of a mountain, which isn't exactly the picture of 'clean' either.

Your definition of "clean" is far different than many others.

Re: Clean Coal

[d34thm0nk3y]

Carbon-Neutral Coal simply does not exists and is a laughable proposition.

If I suggested we skip the whole solar power thing because my perpetual motion machine will take care of our energy needs I would expect to be called an idiot.

Re:Clean Coal

[WolfWithoutAClause]

Clean coal pretty much does actually exist, you can put carbon capture and smoke stack scrubbers etc etc. but when you do that it winds up very expensive.

It's a pyric victory really.

Re:Clean Coal

[Anonymous Coward]

Clean coal is like dry water, doesn't exist.

I hope your family and mom enjoys the mercury poisoning, jackass.

Re:Clean Coal

[Anonymous Coward]

Even with all that, lots of pollution escapes.

Just because it is less worse doesn't make it clean.

Re:Clean Coal

[eric_harris_76]

Coal is carbon-neutral?

Just because I don't believe in the AGW religion doesn't mean I'll let this slide.

It's only carbon-neutral if you're willing to wait millions of years for new coal (or petroleum) to be made.

I'm not a young man anymore, so I don't think I can wait that long.

Geo Political Interference

[Anonymous Coward]

If this whole renewable energy thing seriously takes off, what happens to the US and its Geo Political interference in the Middle East?

Re:Geo Political Interference

[MightyMartian]

Not to worry. The Koch Brothers will never permit renewables to overtake oil. Jesus loves oil and will send every single advocate or developer of renewal technologies to hell after having them assraped by demons. The Koch's will give Congress and State legislatures enough hookers and blow to create a new constitutional amendment allowing alternative energy researchers to be hunted down and killed for sport.

Re:Geo Political Interference

[Anonymous Coward]

Middle East? Burn it all down, so the Russians can't have it. Salt the earth!

Re:Geo Political Interference

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks Michael Moore. Slashdot can't come up with its own ideological bullshit, so we appreciate the assist.

Re:Geo Political Interference

[Anonymous Coward]

Bit of a 'If we don't need it, you can't have it situation'?

Re:Geo Political Interference

[MightyMartian]

Surely you must admit that Jesus loves oil more than all other energies, and that irreparable harm will be done to the Koch's investment port... er I mean the economy if we should ever move from fossil fuels. How can you possibly argue with the fact that it evil communists want to kill freedom with wind farms and solar panels. Such people should be tortured, executed, and mutilated bodies driven down the road to show that Congress and God will not tolerate communist energy production methods.

Re:Geo Political Interference

[Applehu Akbar]

"Burn it all down, so the Russians can't have it. "

Why WOULDN'T we want the Russians to have the Middle East? After a few generations of good old colonial exploitation, the ME will have completely forgotten about hating the US and, depending on the effectiveness of Russia's indoctrination and cultural reprogramming, could emerge as the "India" of the 23rd or 24th century.

Re:Geo Political Interference

[ShanghaiBill]

The Koch Brothers will never permit renewables to overtake oil.

Turn on the TV and watch the news. The Kochs exercise their influence through the Republican Party establishment, which is in the process of being shredded by Donald Trump. The Republicans have thrived by building a coalition of social conservatives, who tend to be less educated middle class people, and economic conservatives that mostly do not share their interests, but control the political establishment. That coalition is collapsing. Trump doesn't give a crap about the establishment. In the general election, where he is almost certainly headed, he is going to hit Hillary from the right with social populism, and from the left with economic populism. As one pundit put it, Hillary's political machine is like a super-tanker ... that is about to be boarded by Somali pirates.

Donald may lose in November, but the Republican Party is going to be changed forever. Trump has shown that he can win without the party establishment, and that rank-and-file Republicans will vote for somebody that speaks their language and channels their anger, rather than someone that shares their ideology. Even this year, this change will have a big effect down-ballot, in house and senate races. The influence of people like the Koch brothers is fading. Their money certainly didn't do much to help Jeb Bush.

Re:Geo Political Interference

[Ol Olsoc]

Not to worry. The Koch Brothers will never permit renewables to overtake oil. Jesus loves oil and will send every single advocate or developer of renewal technologies to hell after having them assraped by demons. The Koch's will give Congress and State legislatures enough hookers and blow to create a new constitutional amendment allowing alternative energy researchers to be hunted down and killed for sport.

Of course that won't happen. But I suspect that large portions of the country are becoming so anti-everything except what their paid representatives tell them they believe that we stand a pretty good chance of becoming a world backwater, possibly even to the point of slipping into the second world.

Re:Geo Political Interference

[ClickOnThis]

The Republicans have thrived by building a coalition of social conservatives, who tend to be less educated middle class people, and economic conservatives that mostly do not share their interests, but control the political establishment.

There are two types of Republicans: millionaires and suckers.
-- author unknown

Re:Geo Political Interference

[ClickOnThis]

Jesus loves oil and will send every single advocate or developer of renewal technologies to hell after having them assraped by demons.

But-but-but...oil comes from decaying dinosaurs. And that would mean...Jesus acknowledges the existence of dinosaurs from millions of years ago??

I need a minute...

Re:Geo Political Interference

[ClickOnThis]

Bit of a 'If we don't need it, you can't have it situation'?

The phrase you're looking for is scorched earth.

Re:Geo Political Interference

[Maxo-Texas]

It's interesting because I know 0% of democrats will vote for Trump and I've seen *recent* polls (on 538.com) showing that 47% of republicans will stay home rather than vote for Trump.

I get the facist, authoritarian appeal of the man. It's scary because this is how democracies are lost. But... I don't think you can be elected with 53% of the republican vote.

OTH, the 35% who hate Hillary and would never vote for her are mostly republican anyway.

It's hard for me to judge between her and Bernie. Bernie is a lot more likable. Hillary is a lot tougher and has a ton of grit and also showed herself to be an extremely loyal democrat last election.

When you mix in the supreme court thing- all obama has to do is nominate a highly qualified moderate but slightly liberal hispanic supreme court justice candidate and when the republicans refuse to even give that candidate a hearing (much less a vote- and much less a no vote), they can kiss florida and perhaps texas and arizona goodbye for the next 20 years.

Re:Geo Political Interference

[evilviper]

It's hard for me to judge between her and Bernie.

Hillary supports expanding H1-B visas.
Bernie opposes the H1-B visa program.

Pretty obvious difference, which should matter a lot to this audience.

Re:Geo Political Interference

[ShanghaiBill]

It's interesting because I know 0% of democrats will vote for Trump

Don't be so sure. Trump is a political chameleon, and on economic issues he is more of a left-wing populist than right wing. On trade, entitlements, etc. he is closer to Bernie Sanders than to the Republican mainstream. His supporters care less about what he says, and more about how he says it. So far, he has paid no consequences for flip-flopping, so he is free to adjust his positions to anything that appeals to the general electorate. If Hillary stumbles (or is indicted), she could easily lose.

 

Re:Geo Political Interference

[Anonymous Coward]

I would have to Say Fusion would have to be his energy of choice, considering 99.9% of all energy in the universe comes from it.

Re:Geo Political Interference

[dbIII]

It's really bizzare that an extremely blatant liar is seen as "authentic", but that's the way it's going.
The way he is tearing into the other Republicans is more vicious than any comedy act - it's far stranger than fiction.

Re:Geo Political Interference

[serviscope_minor]

It's really bizzare that an extremely blatant liar is seen as "authentic",

It's because he doesn't speak the usual politico-speak. He doesn't tend to weasel word, preferring absolutes instead and he makes a big fuss about speaking "tough truths" a.k.a politicially incorrect stuff which others "dare" not speak. This all sounds qualatatively different from how politicians speak and politicians are considered as deeply untruthful. This is comibned with a big dose of rudeness, which is often mistaken for honesty, because honesty sometimes involves saying things which hurt someone else and so does rudeness.

In other words, people have latched on to the manner of what is being said not what it actually being said.

TL;DR: he doesn't sound like a normal politician so he's perceived as more honest.

TLTL;DRDR: :(

Re:Geo Political Interference

[Anonymous Coward]

I've also heard the exact same thing re Bernie. If he doesn't get in half of the demos won't vote. Are these both made up and spread?

Re:Geo Political Interference

[RoboJ1M]

I reserve the right to steal that and change it to:

There are two types of Tory, Millionaires and Suckers

Suckers' not very British is it.

Um...

and Idiots.
and Morons.
and The Gullible Working Classes
and The Racist Underclasses
and The Great Unwashed ...

I'll work on that.

Re:Geo Political Interference

[dbIII]

he makes a big fuss about speaking "tough truths"

That's the incredibly weird thing since he says that after used car salesman tricks, blatant lies, deliberately insane fantasies and frequent backflips. That's the deliberate showmanship but for some reason people swallow it as authentic.
The even more strange thing is an old money born Republican who used his party contacts to get his balls out of the fire four times, not to mention exploiting it to get deals, is seen as an "outsider". A bit over as couple of hundred years ago he was exactly the sort of person the revolution was supposed to stop from running the place - a full on inherited money aristocrat.

Re:Geo Political Interference

[RoboJ1M]

Talk about your poisoned chalice.

Oh go oooon. Look at all the oil!
And gold!

Who them? Friendly locals, nothing to worry about...

Re:Geo Political Interference

[Anonymous Coward]

It is because Hillary is a woman and "broke down barriers as a woman alone, just nothing to her name except being a first lady, doing it tough out there".. Oh wait you were talking about the other compulsive liar? Eh who can tell em apart

Re:Geo Political Interference

[serviscope_minor]

That's the deliberate showmanship but for some reason people swallow it as authentic.

Yes, yes they do. I have several related hypotheses for why.

Firstly, people WANT to like Trump. Either way he's not a career politician and thus seen as less "establishment" than the others. And compared to, say, Jeb of the Bush dynasty, he IS less of the establishment. Combine that with people being absolutely sick to the back teeth of the slew of usual candidates. The established parties (doesn't really matter which) just keep on offering more and more of the same with the same politicans and same non policies and same lies and corporate kow-towing.

Trump appears to be alightly outside of the mechanism which produces those and he sounds very different. I mean sure underneath it's the same lies, but he appears to come from the outside and sounds like he comes from the outside.

Being sick of the usual slew of slime is completely understandable.

So, seeming to be different from the same-old same-old that many are understandably sick of, people really, really want to like him. That part is undersdtandable, and I completely get it.

I think the other part is that people assume politicians are liars based on past experience. Therefore anyone who appears sufficiently like a politician is percieved as a liar. It's a handy mental shortcut and is largely correct. Why bother sifting through hundreds of statemnts and research to confirm what you know is true anyway? I mean sure, you might do it the first 10 times, but after you've discovered that every politician you've investigated in detail (or just waited until they face-plant in the news) is a wretched liar, it's pretty reasonable to just assume.

People make mental shortcuts all the time (this is legit---it's impossible to live life without doing so).

The other mental shortcut is assessing honesty. I think people generally assume others default to honesty more or less, unless there's something obvious to indicate otherwise (i.e. being a politician, used car salesman, looking wrong in some way, etc).

So people are essentially using the every-day shortcuts and Trump doesn't sound like a politician (which automatically gives him the benefit of the doubt, rather than automatic suspicion) and he uses rhetorical tricks which sound honest.

So if you never fact check, then he appears to be a really good candidate.

So there you go, that's why I think people are so in favour of Trump. I think you can probably tell that I think they are gravely mistaken, but I understand where they're coming from. It's a mixture of desperation (lack of good candidates), rhetorical tricks (from Trump) and people not switching off day-to-day mental shortcuts for an exceptional event (the election).

That's a rough cut. There's more, too, including things about him tapping into xenophobia (a very human trait---we are after all a tribal species), people wanting to believe the fantasies etc etc,, but I think the first explanation is why people give him so much credibility in the first place.

Re:Geo Political Interference

[Muad'Dave]

and the hoi polloi - how's that?

Re: Geo Political Interference

[Martin Blank]

Those polls are interesting, but like the head-to-head matchups, they mean little this early. There are still major factors left, like vice presidential picks, that can shift things. Trump looks like he might be picking Christie (he's been in Trump's presence for a few days now), which could be helpful, though maybe not enough to head off a Clinton victory. Clinton could make an abysmal choice on a Palin level, which would definitely shift things towards the Republican nominee, though that kind of pick is unlikely from that family. If Trump takes the nomination, it's also possible that someone like Cruz or Carson could make a third-party run, which could draw some people from the sidelines.

In any case, there's always a sizable portion of those who say they'll just stay home early on that end up going to the election anyway, and the overwhelming majority if them vote their party.

Re:Geo Political Interference

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus loves oil and will send every single advocate or developer of renewal technologies to hell after having them assraped by demons.

But-but-but...oil comes from decaying dinosaurs. And that would mean...Jesus acknowledges the existence of dinosaurs from millions of years ago??

I need a minute...

Well even the Vatican no longer opposes the idea of evolution these days.

Re:Geo Political Interference

[silentcoder]

In short: honesty is often rude, but rude is not often honest.

Re:Geo Political Interference

[Anonymous Coward]

You're probably too young to remember Russia's invasion of Afghanistan. The US occupation of Afghanistan was a resounding success by comparison.

Russia's not stupid enough to try it again.

Re:Geo Political Interference

[DigiShaman]

Hillary supports expanding H1-B visas.

Of course she does. She's a globalist that's by and for the global elite. The World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos would approve of her in this regard most assuredly.

Re:Geo Political Interference

[Maury Markowitz]

> It's interesting because I know 0% of democrats will vote for Trump and I've seen *recent* polls (on 538.com)
> showing that 47% of republicans will stay home rather than vote for Trump

But what is the number that wouldn't vote for one of the others?

> OTH, the 35% who hate Hillary and would never vote for her are mostly republican anyway.

I'm not sure about that. I do however, *believe* that the numbers are in her favour in this respect. That is, the number of traditional republicans who won't vote would be much higher than the number of dems who would do the same. This, IMHO, will be magnified by the Trump hatred - a lot of people will turn up to vote against him, it's not clear there will be a significant number who will do the same against Hillary.

So maybe the reform vote doesn't get to vote for Bernie, but they might destroy the lunatic fringe of the GOP. What would come of that would be interesting to see.

Re:Geo Political Interference

[Maury Markowitz]

> So there you go, that's why I think people are so in favour of Trump

Absolutely. The question is not "why Trump" as much as "why the rest of the party can't do anything about it". There is utter dread in the GOP, although that might have been replaced by resignation by this morning, and yet they haven't managed to do a thing.

> The established parties (doesn't really matter which) just keep on offering more and more of the same

I don't think one can possibly consider Bernie to be "more of the same". Yet in spite of this, he's losing. That likely speaks more to the general malaise quotient - I think the average dem is less mad with the world than the average gop, but that might not be surprising given that the dems have the WH.

Re:Geo Political Interference

[Anonymous Coward]

So does the Islamic prophet... but your bigotry would not dare let you post that, would it?

Re:Geo Political Interference

[Anonymous Coward]

wankers?

Re:Geo Political Interference

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you would be shocked that the number of Bernie / Trump supporters who would jump to the other if one dropped out. I'm surprised at the number of people who just want something different. A bunch of people I know who voted for Obama, still want *change* and now realize that neither establishment will provide it.

Re:Geo Political Interference

[MachineShedFred]

I don't like the idea of trading two billionaires who are pulling the puppet strings for one billionaire loudmouth asshole, personally. It would be interesting to watch, if I wasn't afraid that it will end the Republic as we know it.

Re:Geo Political Interference

[MachineShedFred]

More than that, you have reliably conservative publications openly deriding him as a "Dorito-tinted proto-fascist" and declaring that anyone who endorses him is a political whore in editorials.

Strange times, indeed.

Re: Geo Political Interference

[fyngyrz]

I don't think he'd go for it, but imagine the reaction if Clinton tapped Sanders for VP and he accepted.

Interesting times.

Re:Geo Political Interference

[nyctopterus]

Mugs, it even scans better:

There are two types of Tory, Millionaires and Mugs

Re:Geo Political Interference

[fyngyrz]

Russia's just as interested in churning money through its military industrial complex as the US is, because it drives huge segments of both country's economies.

"Success" in modern military undertakings doesn't mean "I win", it means "spend like Imelda Marcos in a shoe store while wallowing in kickback."

This is the entire reason for both the Iraq and Afghanistan undertakings the US has been wallowing in. All the babbling about "terrorism" and so forth is just the bread and circuses on top. Terrorism is meaningless to the government and the 1% in the economic picture. If deaths of citizens before their time were even remotely of concern to the power structure, the first place to put money and attention would be the roads. They're not doing that, in fact they are letting the infrastructure decay instead of improving it and making it safer, so it is plainly obvious they don't care -- at all -- about citizens randomly being killed.

What they do care about is power and profit. And war without any chance of significant damage at home is, as it has ever been, a path to both. The roads aren't. And there you have it.

This is why the US will *always* be waging war, or at the very least, pumping huge amounts of money into its military in order to prepare for the next cobbled-up war. The Russians are tuning up a capitalist model right now, and they're going to be right in there doing the same thing if they actually figure out how capitalist economies max out; making war on foreign soil that does not put the country at internal risk. Count on it.

Re:Geo Political Interference

[ClickOnThis]

Well even the Vatican no longer opposes the idea of evolution these days.

Correct. In fact, most of the mainstream denominations of the world's major religions accept Darwin's theory of evolution.

I was doubling down on the GGP's playful sarcasm. I guess my down-modder didn't notice.

Re:Geo Political Interference

[chihowa]

So people are essentially using the every-day shortcuts and Trump doesn't sound like a politician (which automatically gives him the benefit of the doubt, rather than automatic suspicion) and he uses rhetorical tricks which sound honest.

It's important to note that all of the "slimy" characteristics that are attributed to politicians and car salesmen were originally characteristics that people perceived as indicators of honesty, too. If his tricks work, they will be coopted by other career manipulators (politicians, marketers, etc) until they no longer have any value and will then be dropped for new tricks.

There's a very real chance that this constant abuse of trust will have longterm effects on our society.

Re:Geo Political Interference

[MightyMartian]

Don't be absurd. Oil is made magically in the ground non-biogenic means. It is an endless source of energy, a black manna that will never do any harm to the environment or to the climate, and anyone who says so should be taken out into the street, stripped, and then stomped to death.

Re: Geo Political Interference

[Anonymous Coward]

The other way around would probably keep ol' Bernie awake at night. Imagine your life being the only thing between Hillary and the Presidency.

Re:Geo Political Interference

[DanielRavenNest]

Hillary's ex-son-in-law was a Goldman-Sachs investment banker (he and Chelsea divorced). You don't get much more global elite than that.

Re:Geo Political Interference

[Maxo-Texas]

This is an odd point. I don't hate Trump. I find him scary but somehow, he avoids me hating him.

Might not be true for minorities tho.

Re:Geo Political Interference

[dbIII]

he IS less of the establishment

Yet he was born to it and has been a political animal his entire life using party connections to prop up his business gambles.

Re:Geo Political Interference

[serviscope_minor]

Yet he was born to it and has been a political animal his entire life using party connections to prop up his business gambles.

Less is not an absolute, it is relative. He's not currently a senator and has not come from a dynastic political family in the same way Bush has, for example.

Re:Geo Political Interference

[dbIII]

Here's a reminder that he's a part of it not an "outsider" - warning, annoying ads.
http://www.tvguide.com/news/donald-trump-presidential-campaign-timeline/
Of course he's done a lot more with various deals with figures in local politics as part of his property empire and to do various deals to get away with going bankrupt four times.

He's like something out of third world politics and the others don't look much better this time.

Re:Geo Political Interference

[Anonymous Coward]

There are a couple of that Trump reminds me of:

- Hugo Chavez;
- Rob Ford;

Chavez, not for the political leanings because they are opposite ends of the political spectrum. No the resemblance is to the ego and the verbal facility that allows the politician to talk without notes for hours. And the audience is enraptured!

Ford because of the populism element. Rob Ford became a hero for lots of working-class people, immigrants, and many who were otherwise disengaged and uninterested in politics. People who felt that the establishment excluded them.

Re:Geo Political Interference

[Anonymous Coward]

Afghanistan is not part of the middle east numbnuts

Re:Geo Political Interference

[Anonymous Coward]

So... this billionaire doesn't care about the establishment, and is an economic populist? Give me a break.

You must only look at his life, deeds and ambitions to see that he is a self serving megalomaniac who is telling you what you want to hear to manipulate you.... and you believe him!

Re:Geo Political Interference

[vandamme]

I think you oughta read Pope Frank's take on the issue, "Laudatio Si". Because your theology is seriously outta whack.

Why gas?

[penguinoid]

Of new fossil fuel plants, the vast majority are going to be burning natural gas; there are no planned additions of coal plants.

Sure, natural gas produces less CO2 than coal, but doesn't it have smaller reserves? Also, I think natural gas is more useful.

Re:Why gas?

[Anonymous Coward]

"natural gas produces less CO2 than coal" It's more than that, coal also produces ash that ends up warming the snow it lands on by absorbing sunlight. Re: arctic.

Re:Why gas?

[skids]

The principle advantage I have seen claimed for natural gas other than the lower carbon content is that the generators used for natural gas in electricity production can be quickly ramped up and down to adapt to demand. A possible marginal benefit is that infrastructure for natural gas distribution in heating could also start mixing in biogas, perhaps even replacing it completely with a renewable. Also it is probably easier to get a PEM fuel cell to work on it.

Re:Why gas?

[ClickOnThis]

"natural gas produces less CO2 than coal" It's more than that, coal also produces ash that ends up warming the snow it lands on by absorbing sunlight. Re: arctic.

Well fine, but if you're going to use natural gas, make sure you burn it and not just let it escape to the atmosphere. Sadly, the latter happens all-too-often.

As a greenhouse gas, methane (the principal component of natural gas) is much worse than carbon dioxide.

Re:Why gas?

[evilviper]

A possible marginal benefit is that infrastructure for natural gas distribution in heating could also start mixing in biogas, perhaps even replacing it completely with a renewable.

Pretty sure coal suppliers could also start mixing in simple solid biomass, too. Charcoal, in particular, comes to mind. So that's decidedly NOT an advantage of natural gas over coal.

Re:Why gas?

[dbIII]

Exactly, which is why it was going used back when it was expensive. I've seen old jet engines that consume vast amounts of gas per MWh used in that role before there was much in the way of purpose built generators. Spinning reserves of windmills also fill that role and have a smaller unit size so can better follow demand so gas is no longer the only thing in that niche. It costs almost nothing per hour to have a windmill ready to engage the generator and come on line in under a minute.

Re:Why gas?

[Anonymous Coward]

Reserves don't matter. We have far too much fossil fuel reserves to burn. That's why oil prices are tanking: everybody is starting to realize that since you can't burn all the oil in the world, there will be quite a few reserves that we will leave untapped. And that means no money at all. Better sell it now for pennies than not at all. With fracking, gas is also sufficient. Coal is the big loser - already too dirty, and there will be massive reserves left unused. (If anything, we'd mine it to be used as uranium ore !)

Re:Why gas?

[Anonymous Coward]

windmills can't be reserve, you don't know if the wind will be blowing, talk about dumb idiots!!..

Re:Why gas?

[Bengie]

A 1GW coal power plant produces enough nuclear waste to power a 1.1GW nuclear power plant. It is a horrible way to produce energy.

Re:Why gas?

[angel'o'sphere]

Over the course of perhaps a thousand years.
Where do you have your idiotic ideas from?

Re:Why gas?

[penguinoid]

The principle advantage I have seen claimed for natural gas other than the lower carbon content is that the generators used for natural gas in electricity production can be quickly ramped up and down to adapt to demand.

Yes, that makes a lot of sense and in particular goes well with the sporadic nature of wind/solar. So they're building a lot of renewable and a lot of load balancing.

Re:Why gas?

[dbIII]

Look at a weather map, the wind is always blowing somewhere.
You really should have applied some thought before the "dumb idiots", it has backfired.

Re:Why gas?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gas turbines can be throttled and go from not generating to generating max load within seconds. Coal plants have a considerable longer (hours) amount of time required to throttle from zero to max and back. Most coal plants just chug along at 100%. Meaning that when extra renewables are available on the grid, said plant is still polluting at 100%.

Next to that, burning coal tends to yield extra pollutants (ash, radioactive isotopes, microparticles, sulfurous compounds, etc..). 'Coal' is a pretty complex thing. Gas on the other hand is just a few select molecules (methane, ethane, propane, butane). Gas does not have this issue

Lastly, the business case of a coal plant is basically "Burn all the coal all the time" or running as close as possible to 100% utilisation over the decades that the plant is in operation. With increasing variability in demand (smart grids, lowered usage) and production (due to renewables) this becomes a bit of a hazy proposition. Grids need to have a demand/supply balance. Disrupting this balance means you have to pay for the impact of your disruption on the grid. That does not go well with the business case of a coal plant, but gas plants have no risk in those regards (The only risk there is an overabundance of renewables meaning that the gas turbine will spend too much time at 0%)

tl;dr;
- coal pollutes more
- coal plants cannot throttle
- Business case for coal plants looking worse every day

Re:Why gas?

[Anonymous Coward]

That must be why the gas planets are warming up.

Numbnuts

Re:Why gas?

[vandamme]

True, but methane breaks down. CO2 is forever until somebody sucks it out of the air and sequesters it.

The sun is not a reliable source of power!

[Anonymous Coward]

It goes out every night!

What if it doesn't come on again one morning, what then?

1.1 Gigawatts

[jeffb (2.718)]

Oh, so close. Just 110 megawatts short, Doc.

Re:1.1 Gigawatts

[MHolmesIV]

I know! I saw this and thought, "what nuclear engineer designing this saw 1.1 Gigawatts and didn't think, 'hey, with just a slight tweak, we could produce 1.21 Gigawatts!'"

No tax breaks ?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's going to see if this continues without the tax breaks

If the economics of renewable work out - mainly if they vastly reduce downtime and maintenance/manpower costs - it'll keep growing.

Maintenance/downtime on thermal and nuclear plants is horrible.

Re:No tax breaks ?

[PopeRatzo]

It's going to see if this continues without the tax breaks

Aren't you also interested in seeing if the coal industry and the oil industry are able to continue without tax breaks?

http://www.taxpayer.net/librar...

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/...

http://www.investopedia.com/ar...

Re:No tax breaks ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you read what you write ?

Coal and Related Technologies Program $1.1 billion
Clean Coal Power Initiative $1.8 billion
Clean Air-Coal Program $3 billion
Clean Coal Tax Credits $3 billion
Carbon Sequestration Tax Credit $0.45 billion
Refund of coal excise tax for certain producers $0.21 billion
Other Coal-related expenditures $.16 billion

All but the last two are BS clean coal programs. So yeah the government robs with one hand, then gives a little back with the other.

Re:No tax breaks ?

[Applehu Akbar]

"...vastly reduce downtime and maintenance/manpower costs..."

After a few years pass, what's the maintenance going to look like on hundreds of thousands of wind turbine nacelles filled with complex gearing that has been whipped by salt spray, pooped on by birds and visited by the occasional gang of metal thieves? What happens when sand dunes 'walk' over your solar array?

Energy sprawl means maintenance sprawl.

Re:No tax breaks ?

[Ol Olsoc]

It's going to see if this continues without the tax breaks

Aren't you also interested in seeing if the coal industry and the oil industry are able to continue without tax breaks?

http://www.taxpayer.net/librar...

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/...

http://www.investopedia.com/ar...

And that's a wrap! AC down below has forgotten - or refuses to account for the huge amount of subsidies received by Coal, Oil and Natgas.

Now of course, the crowning acievement of subsidized energy Nookyalar! http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-...

https://lucian.uchicago.edu/bl...

I'm not even anti-nuc, but dammit, I'll wager a cup of crap that they are "free market" advocates. Those billions for that, and the taxpayers bearing the reisks of nuc plants sounds like the invisible hand of the free market is giving a reach around hand job to the nuc industry.

Re:No tax breaks ?

[crunchygranola]

Some mighty fine FUD you have there. Next time try bringing some facts to the table.

Re:No tax breaks ?

[dbIII]

In other places they don't have them - the secret is to make bribery illegal instead of just renaming it to "lobbying". Those tax breaks were paid for by some serious kickbacks in the form of campaign contributions, jobs for the boys and a lot of other ways.

Re:No tax breaks ?

[dbIII]

After a few years pass, what's the maintenance going to look like

Quite a lot but that discussion has been going on for a couple of decades and the investors know what they are in for. High maintenance costs and short periods between required shutdowns but zero fuel costs. At some point a bit over ten years ago it balanced out and became viable.

Re:No tax breaks ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny to see someone make fun of the way one group pronounces one word then totally fouls up the spelling of the accepted shortened version of the same word.

I don't even have to approach the disingenuous rant about free market economies. The poster knows they are wrong but just wants to make a political talking point that means nothing to anyone with more than three brain cells.

Re:No tax breaks ?

[avandesande]

You realize that more than 50% of fuel profits go to taxes, right? And these 'tax breaks' are mostly around encouraging exploration of new domestic sources?

Re:No tax breaks ?

[Ol Olsoc]

Funny to see someone make fun of the way one group pronounces one word then totally fouls up the spelling of the accepted shortened version of the same word.

Not as funny as the 1990's rant "Yu spell wrung, terror yu entire argument iz wrung." Littel scuggin cow word thet yu iz.

By the way, I also made a typo on "acievement" instead of achievement. Guezz that mayks me doobly wrung.

Re:No tax breaks ?

[MachineShedFred]

Yeah, because I'm sure that engineers haven't thought of using some kind of sealed casing for the wind turbine gearboxes. Yep, those are just open-air cogs that birds can freely shit in.

And yeah, I'm sure some meth-head metal thief is going to climb a 100 foot pylon with no hand holds on it to steal... what? A spinning propeller? Energized electrical cable? Is there even one case you can point to where a wind turbine has been visited by 'metal thieves' ?

Re:No tax breaks ?

[PopeRatzo]

You realize that more than 50% of fuel profits go to taxes, right?

About that...

http://myfox8.com/2014/02/26/d...

Re:No tax breaks ?

[Applehu Akbar]

Voila, mon ami! Vingt turbines françaises sont cassées!

http://www.france24.com/en/201...

Re:No tax breaks ?

[MachineShedFred]

And once again I am amazed by the idiocy of my fellow man.

We could do better, much better

[Taco Cowboy]

TFA tells us that in 2016, 18.1GW (9.5GW of solar and 8.6GW of wind) renewable energy is expected to come online in America

Very good

On the other hand ...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...

According to bloomberg's article

... China to add more than 20 gigawatts of wind power in 2016

China eyes at least 15 gigawatts of solar power additions ...

... in the same year, China gonna have at least35GW of new renewable energy coming online

We could do better

In fact, we should do better

Re:We could do better, much better

[skids]

China has 4 times as many people.

But yes, we can do better. Especially if we can get the obstructionists to step down.

Re:We could do better, much better

[LynnwoodRooster]

Not to mention there is quite a bit more capacity already existing than what is added. This addition is a few percent of the total out there... Also interesting to see natural gas lumped in with solar and wind...

Re:We could do better, much better

[Anonymous Coward]

Making any comparison between two countries, without taking into account government, economic, cultural, infrastructure, and population differences can lead to simplistic conclusions which may or may not be correct.

For instance, the USA will have nearly twice as much new renewable energy coming online on a per capita basis as China.
(China 35 gigawatts / 1.357 billion population to USA 18 gigawatts / 0.389 billion population). So an argument can be made that we should cut back on renewable energy to match China on a per capita basis.

It's all a silly comparison. What the USAs energy policy and what China's energy policy is should be driven by the needs and capabilities of each country, What is the criteria or basis that determines our energy needs and hence drives the amount of renewable energy that is going to be needed?

Re: We could do better, much better

[Bartles]

If you want to get them to step down, stop subsidizing solar corporations with their money, you authoritarian fucktard.

Re:We could do better, much better

[Anonymous Coward]

Chinas economy is bigger than the US economy.

Re: We could do better, much better

[rtb61]

How about they stop subsidising renewable energy developments the very second after all fossil fuel subsidies and tax breaks stop and oh yeah, the fossil fuellers start paying tax instead of off shoring the profits in tax havens and oh yeah, and fossil fuel executives start going to jail for killing people with short cuts and oh yeah, fossil fuel companies pay for the total cost of the pollution they generate and oh yeah, fossil fuel companies pay the full liabilities of toxic incidents and oh yeah, fossil fuellers are forced to contribute to a trust fund to pay for underwater front flood damages (somewhere in the trillions) and oh yeah, fossil fuellers are forced to pay for the various annoyances caused by the infernal combustion engine, smell, noise, toxic fumes. Can you give me an, oh yeah. Feel better now?

Re:We could do better, much better

[crunchygranola]

Everybody but you thinks the U.S. economy is 70% larger than the Chinese economy.

Re:We could do better, much better

[ShanghaiBill]

Everybody but you thinks the U.S. economy is 70% larger than the Chinese economy.

The US economy is bigger is you compare using current exchange rates. If you instead use PPP, then China's economy is bigger. In many ways, PPP is a more meaningful comparison.

Re: We could do better, much better

[Maxo-Texas]

Funny thing is spending 2 to 3 trillion dollars and 4,000 young united states citizen's lives isn't even considered a subsidy for oil... and it is.

Sooner we reduce dependency on oil, the sooner ISIS and the like get starved out for cash.

We don't need to eliminate oil to do that. just a 5% reduction in consumption will do it. With storage as full as it is, even 1 to 2% will extend the decline by another year or two.

Personally, I find the republicans to be much more authoritarian than democrats.

Re: We could do better, much better

[Anonymous Coward]

Without checking, my guess is they use less than a quarter the energy per person though

Re:We could do better, much better

[dbIII]

We should be selling them the panels and the rest since most of it is American developed technology but ideology driven by donation drove the manufacturing offshore.

Re: We could do better, much better

[serviscope_minor]

If you want to get them to step down, stop subsidizing solar corporations with their money, you authoritarian fucktard.

Well, I was pretty much convinced of the opposite, but your cunning use of the word "fucktard" won me over to your line of reasoning.

Re: We could do better, much better

[khallow]

Funny thing is spending 2 to 3 trillion dollars and 4,000 young united states citizen's lives isn't even considered a subsidy for oil... and it is.

There's a good reason it isn't. Because that money and lives spent would be vastly inefficient as a subsidy for oil. While the subsidies for renewable energy are pure. We're not making a fair comparison.

Sooner we reduce dependency on oil, the sooner ISIS and the like get starved out for cash.

It also starves nice people of cash. Global trade, including that of oil, is the number one tool for making everyone's lives better.

Re:We could do better, much better

[Anonymous Coward]

Well duh. China is lagging massively in power generation capacity. They're building a lot of powerplants to catch up, including coal plants. The US is mostly replacing outdated plants. The real comparison is not absolute GW, but how much this increases the % of renewable energy in the total power plant output.

Re: We could do better, much better

[Maxo-Texas]

Expensive oil helps 5% of the population at the expense of the other 95%.

Yes, that money and lives spent are vastly ineffecient. But the oil companies have externalized their security costs onto the rest of the citizens.

If that 2 to 3 trillion dollars was paid by the oil companies instead, gasoline and oil products would be much higher. By having them paid for with taxes it provides the illusion that oil isn't as expensive as oil really is.

Re: We could do better, much better

[dave420]

And the number one tool for making everyone's lives worse. We abhor war, but apparently this is juuust fine.

Re: We could do better, much better

[khallow]

Expensive oil helps 5% of the population at the expense of the other 95%.

Then explain how "Funny thing is spending 2 to 3 trillion dollars and 4,000 young united states citizen's lives" had anything to do with making oil more expensive.

If that 2 to 3 trillion dollars was paid by the oil companies instead, gasoline and oil products would be much higher.

If that 2 to 3 trillion dollars was paid for by somebody's own money, then it would be much less (assuming they even wanted to invade Iraq instead of some lesser goal). And low "gasoline and oil products" would not be "expensive oil". You just claimed that these alleged subsidies made oil both more expensive and less expensive. Or even worse, that oil companies with expensive oil and inexpensive oil products are somehow making more money than if they had cheap oil and expensive oil products. In the US, a lot of the value in oil comes from the refining not the raw product!

By having them paid for with taxes it provides the illusion that oil isn't as expensive as oil really is.

Oil isn't being paid for with taxes nor is there some 2 to 3 trillion dollar oil security service paid for here. Think of this analogy.

For me, a gas station in a really nice part of town would cost me a million dollars, including cost of land and whatever. If my cronies on the town council acquire the land and build the station for me at a million dollars, then that's a million dollar subsidy to me. But suppose instead, they build an enormous, multi-block sports complex for 10 billion dollars and my free gas station was along for the ride. It's still just a million dollar subsidy to me despite the huge sums spent. It would be inappropriate to claim I had received a 10 billion dollar subsidy when I didn't.

I believe something similar went on with the two invasions above. They spent enormous sums and had tremendous opportunities for all sorts of subsidy and shenanigans. But there just wasn't that much value to the oil industry. It might have weakened OPEC a little or increased supply a little. It certainly wasn't needed to maintain most oil transportation infrastructure or security except perhaps for some of the Gulf states.

Frankly, I think there's a far better case that policies for fighting global warming have done considerably more to generate oil profits than the two US-led invasions.

Re: We could do better, much better

[khallow]

And the number one tool for making everyone's lives worse.

If that is true, then you should have evidence of it, right?

Re:We could do better, much better

[Anonymous Coward]

We should. It's such a shame that great renewable energy giants like Sun Edison are struggling though:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/energy-giant-sunedison-how-to-play-its-meltdown-1456865167

Re: We could do better, much better

[Anonymous Coward]

Subsidies are one thing... and they probably should subsidize all energy industries equally, or better yet skew it so that less polluting industries have greater subsidies to encourage their adoption.
But don't blame the fossil fuel companies for all the pollution in the world. Animal agriculture is the #1 contributor to green house gas emissions, and probably the greatest contributor to water pollution as well.

Re: We could do better, much better

[MachineShedFred]

Only when you stop subsidizing coal with my money, you authoritarian fucktard.

Re:We could do better, much better

[MachineShedFred]

Good News: some of it is being on-shored next year when the biggest solar manufacturing plant in the western hemisphere opens in Buffalo, NY.

Re: We could do better, much better

[fyngyrz]

explain how "Funny thing is spending 2 to 3 trillion dollars and 4,000 young united states citizen's lives" had anything to do with making oil more expensive.

The money comes out of the citizen's pocket. It's not just pulled off a magic tree somewhere. Same thing for oil subsidies.

It's just not paid at the pump. It is just as effective at reducing the money the citizens have left to spend on anything else.

If we stop the wars and stop subsidizing oil directly, then three things happen, one after the other: First, oil prices will rise. Second, consumption will drop. Third, development of alternatives will accelerate.

Of course, doing so would mean an inconvenience to those in power, so it will not be happening any time soon.

Re: We could do better, much better

[Anonymous Coward]

Forgot to take our meds this morning, didn't we?

Re: We could do better, much better

[Bartles]

Specifically, what oil subsidies?

Re:We could do better, much better

[dbIII]

That and things like the Tesla battery plant are a good sign of things swinging back. Your local city may not be doomed to end up like Detroit after all.

Re: We could do better, much better

[Maxo-Texas]

Two to three trillion dollars and 4000 lives to protect oil fields.

We were only in iraq because of oil.

There are many many other nations we could invade to free from dictators but we don't... because oil.

There are many many other genocides going on.. and we do nothing... because oil.

I'm ignoring the continuing ongoing cost to protect oil fields (Billions of tax payer dollars per year).

If those fields were worth 5% as much, and were 5% as critical, we wouldn't be spending so much to protect them.

Oil is hugely subsidized by governments. Diversified energy generation sources reduces oil's criticality and value.

Re:We could do better, much better

[MachineShedFred]

Well, I'm in Cincinnati, which is still doomed. But at least Buffalo is getting a bit of something.

Re:We could do better, much better

[dbIII]

I worked as an engineer in manufacturing before moving to IT due to the lack of jobs in manufacturing so I know what you mean to a painful level.

Re:We could do better, much better

[MachineShedFred]

Heh. I lucked out bigtime, and got a position doing "devops" work for a Bay Area company remotely. Bay Area salary with midwest cost of living. Double-plus excellent.

And I think I've also found the best definition yet for "devops" - doing traditional IT work that traditional IT guys can't be bothered with, or can't be bothered with doing in a speed and level of quality that is deemed reasonable for the software engineering team I work with. Because that's what I do.

RENEWABLE! WAKE UP!

[Anonymous Coward]

NG is renewable. Want more NG? Eat more chili. With beans. Want safe NG? Add soy. Can't miss it. Clean, blue burning flame is the target. Anything less and you need to find a new chili house.

Not really dwarfed

[Solandri]

This year is notable because it will see the first new nuclear plant brought online in 20 years, contributing 1.1 GigaWatts to the grid. But that contribution will be dwarfed by renewable power sources

Not really dwarfed.

1.1 GW * 0.903 capacity factor = 0.99 GW actual production by nuclear
9.5 GW * 0.145 capacity factor = 1.38 GW actual production by solar
6.8 GW * 0.25 capacity factor = 1.7 GW actual production by wind

I mean we get it, renewables = good. But comparing based on installed capacity is like comparing farmland based solely on land area, not how much of that land is actually arable.

Re:Not really dwarfed

[skids]

I used to wish journalist wouldn't do this, and use the "enough to power X homes" energy measure, on principle (choosing that energy measure because it is easy enough for journalists to understand.) Now I wish they wouldn't do it just because of the number of replies it generates on Internet threads to point out the error.

Re:Not really dwarfed

[Anonymous Coward]

The capacity factor you quote for wind is for all in-service, not new. New wind trends higher. Already in the UK the mix with old and new is a capacity factor of 32% over a year, and the new wind has an average factor of around 40%, although the USA figure will depend on the mix of on and offshore and designs.

  6.8 GW * 0.4 capacity factor = 2.7 GW actual production by wind

Would be more representative of new production.

Re:Not really dwarfed

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing that was most interesting (to me at least) in that capacity factor
link was just how good Geothermal power is. It's almost a straight line, whereas
Nuclear goes up and down every few months (fueling??). The USA has the
largest Geothermal resources in the world, but is only using a fraction of it.
Japan is even worse. It has the third largest Geothermal, but generates only
a few 100MW. Meanwhile, out of the 50 Nuclear plants only a couple are operating.
I wonder whether those numbers are included in the nuclear 'capacity factors'. Almost
4 years of near zero capacity!!

Geothermal is not the solution everywhere for sure, but its use should be massively
expanded where it is. 24x7x365 baseload power. Low emission (depending on how
the plant is designed). What's not to like about that?

Re:Not really dwarfed

[Smidge204]

Except for how you improperly applied capacity factor to power (GW) rather than energy (GWh), you're basically right.

For your next assignment, though. consider the time of day the power is generated with the time of day the power is used. For example, it's all fine and good that a nuclear plant can produce 1.1GW with 90% uptime, but you generally don't need 1.1GW all the time anyway. The result is your nuclear plant spends a lot of time very under-utilized - a bad thing considering how expensive they are.

On the other hand, solar tends to produce peak output right around the same time that demand is at peak... so even if it's only producing 15% of the time, every watt it produces counts towards shaving the peak loads. Nothing is wasted.

Then there's something like Wind, where it's so plentiful that it's not unheard of for producers to offer negative prices to encourage people to use it all.
=Smidge=

Re:Not really dwarfed

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing is wasted.

Not true. What is wasted is your capital investment for 85% of each day.

And adding a battery won't help, because then you aren't contributing to the demand at peak.

Re:Not really dwarfed

[angel'o'sphere]

Perhaps you like to explain to us what you actually want to express with that comparision of CFs?
Right now your post is as pointless as pointing out that Toyota mostly sold red cars and Crysler mainly black ones, so what?

Re:Not really dwarfed

[Smidge204]

1) That's not how capital investment works. You invest $x now with the goal of saving $(x+y) over some period of time, and this is not calculated on an hourly basis.

Even so, It doesn't matter if the panels aren't producing anything at night because they were never intended to, and that would not have been part of the calculus to begin with.

2) Peak electricity is often - particularly for commercial and industrial consumers - the most expensive. Solar is a great fit in these situations precisely because it directly offsets the most expensive costs.

3) Batteries COULD help, in two situations: You are producing more power than you need and can afford to store some of it for later, or the difference in peak vs off-peak power costs is great enough that it's more economical to recharge batteries from grid during off-peak hours for consumption during peak hours.

In the former case, you can often "use the grid" through net metering: KWh you put back into the grid are effectively credited to your account and the balance is allowed to go negative (meaning you put into the grid more than you've taken out). You can then use these "banked" KWh during other times, and the account is settled periodically (say, annually) when you pay the utility for a positive balance or they pay you for a negative balance.

For the latter, the difference would have to be pretty huge to make it worthwhile. it's more common where there is a very high power draw but not much total energy, which would result in a huge demand surcharge, but can be absorbed by a modest battery system.
=Smidge=

Yep all 100% brand new.

[sims 2]

They are talking about the Watts Bar Unit 2

They started building it back in 1973 then took a short lunch break in 1988 resumed work in 2007 and finished in 2015.

Since it was 80% done in 1988 that means at least 80% of the reactor unit is at least 27 years old now.

http://thebulletin.org/watts-b...

http://www.latimes.com/busines...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Still nice to see another plant online shame took 42 years to finish it especially since it was only given a 40 year operating licence.

Re:Yep all 100% brand new.

[Plus1Entropy]

Still nice to see another plant online shame took 42 years to finish it especially since it was only given a 40 year operating licence.

This is a misleading statement. From the wikipedia article you linked:

TVA declared construction substantially complete in August 2015 and requested that NRC staff proceed with the final licensing review; on October 22, the NRC approved a forty-year operating license for Unit 2...

So the license wasn't issued 42 years ago. Also, while 80% of the plant may have been complete in 1988, it was likely parts of the construction that don't factor into the lifetime of the reactor.

Re:Yep all 100% brand new.

[dbIII]

The good thing is since it's never got hot it's effectively new for everything out of the weather.
The other thing is the "new" nuclear designs like the AP1000 are really 1970s tech anyway.

Re:Yep all 100% brand new.

[angel'o'sphere]

Does that mean its magical CF is only roughly 1%??

Re:Yep all 100% brand new.

[MachineShedFred]

I'd rather have the 1970s tech that was never built here, than the 1950s tech we're running (and extending the licenses for) today.

Re:Yep all 100% brand new.

[dbIII]

Well yes, but see the nuclear lobby's reaction to thorium experiments in the Clinton era for why we can't have nice things. Those old plants keep the money rolling in while change may mean somebody else gets the money.

Great....

[the_Bionic_lemming]

I pass by a wind turbine on the way to work and it's been down for about six months now. It's Chinese built and the township can't get a part from the firm that built it.

They have received an offer to purchase the site. And no, Enron isn't the company that offered to purchase it.

Re:Great....

[Dutch Gun]

I hope you're not implying that, because of this one data point, wind turbines aren't a viable form of energy production. The lesson I'd tend to take home is that, as with anything else, buying junk from the lowest bidder may end up costing you more in the long run.

Yeesh, what's the world coming to when a Republican is defending green / alternative energy production?

Meaning

[Anonymous Coward]

This is terrible. But after The Great Dictator is elected it will be made great.

Cool but so small

[Art3x]

If my reading and math are good, this year will add 17.4 gigawatts of solar, wind, or nuclear. That's good, and it's also good that there will be no new coal plants this year. However, Wikipedia says that the United States uses 4 petawatt-hours of electricity per year. So I imagine we have a long way to go.

Re:Cool but so small

[Anonymous Coward]

Different units. Power and Energy

17.4 at 0.28 capacity factor generates 17.4*0.28*24*365 ~= 43 TeraWatts-hour
Or a 1% electricity of consumption.

3% will be better, to make completely non-fossil fuel generation by 2050 or similar, but are not so bad numbers.

Re:Cool but so small

[MHolmesIV]

you can hit 4 petawatt/hours in a year with 456gigawatts of production (Making the assumption of constant production, which is a false assumption with wind and solar, but meh.) 3% in a single year isn't horrible.

What I'd really like to see is some sort of utility level grid storage solution take off. We could turn off half our coal plants today if we had enough batteries on the grid to be able to handle peak demand loads.

Germany, where you can sell your power for more

[Anonymous Coward]

In Germany, power utilities are MANDATED to buy power from solar roofs for MORE than those same power utilities sell it to BACK to you.

In other words, you put panels on your roof. You don't store and use this power - not any of it. Instead, you sell it back to the power company, and you sell it for MORE than the power you buy from them. It's NUTS!

And there's excess power during the day so power is very cheap - so cheap you can't even give it away. But that's another story, for another day. Socialism. It'll hang on a bit longer than Communism. A bit longer.

Re:Germany, where you can sell your power for more

[Anonymous Coward]

So nuts that Germany is one of the most economically solid countries in the world.

smh

Re:Germany, where you can sell your power for more

[Anonymous Coward]

They'd start another World War if not.

Re:Germany, where you can sell your power for more

[K. S. Kyosuke]

In Germany, power utilities are MANDATED to buy power from solar roofs for MORE than those same power utilities sell it to BACK to you.

That's not really true anymore. The current feed in rate is something like one third of the residential electricity rate. The rates were progressively decreased in line with solar capital costs decreases.

Re:Germany, where you can sell your power for more

[prefec2]

Electricity production was and is a highly subsidized area of the economy. They funded up nuclear and they will have to subsidize the storage of nuclear wast for centuries to come. They subsidize coal in Germany, which is totally counter productive if you want to phase the shit out. Anyway, to give solar and wind a chance they subsidize it. While the subsidize model for renewables is not perfect, it resulted in an improvement in efficiency in production and cost. Nowadays in production a MWh is cheaper coming from a on shore wind turbine than from a coal plant.

Apart from our government which is unable to have a plan, we will make this move to renewables in the decades to come. FYI: Denmark will reach this level in 2020 and the north German state of Schleswig-Holstein produced more energy from wind power than they consumed. And they assume that they will able to triple the output in 2025 selling the surplus to the other countries and states to the south.

The main issue at the moment in energy management and storage, but we will find a way to solve these issues.

Re:Germany, where you can sell your power for more

[prefec2]

We are not so good at World Wars and Empires. Therefore, we decided to have a smaller military and spend the money on social and ecological stuff. After all we have (or had) the image of being good engineers.

Re:Germany, where you can sell your power for more

[Anonymous Coward]

only if you ignore the fact you still need a normal power station when the wind is not blowing, or sun not shining, so that cost should be factored into the cost of solar/wind.

and storage has got nowhere in 30+years so why do you think it'll suddenly be solved?

Re:Germany, where you can sell your power for more

[Anonymous Coward]

And while I'm sure German engineers build the best oven on the market, i'm not sure I'd want to buy one. Besides, i'm afraid there might be a run on them due to your immigration problem.

Re:Germany, where you can sell your power for more

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't decide willingly. More like others decided that for you.

Re:Germany, where you can sell your power for more

[Ol Olsoc]

Socialism. It'll hang on a bit longer than Communism. A bit longer.

Holy smoke AC. Most of the world would kill to have the economic prowess of little Germany.

Better look at some of the numbers before you open your mouth to insert your foot.

Re:Germany, where you can sell your power for more

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy shit.

Let it go, man. Let it fucking go.

Re:Germany, where you can sell your power for more

[blue9steel]

Holy smoke AC. Most of the world would kill to have the economic prowess of little Germany.

No problem, all you need is a shared currency to keep appreciation down while you run an export economy to have a favorable balance of trade.

Re:Germany, where you can sell your power for more

[Triklyn]

... people tend to get a bit touchy, when you know, 60 million people die over the course of 6 years. that tends to stick in people's minds.

i think it's a bit premature to talk about "letting it go" until we've run out of a concentration camp survivors, war veterans, and those touched by nuclear fire.

forgetting will happen as we lose them, and we'll be the poorer for it. Let it happen in its own time, to think of hastening it, would be doing them and theirs a great disservice.

Re:Germany, where you can sell your power for more

[Ol Olsoc]

Holy smoke AC. Most of the world would kill to have the economic prowess of little Germany.

No problem, all you need is a shared currency to keep appreciation down while you run an export economy to have a favorable balance of trade.

Huh, I thought that the invisible hand of Laissez-faire economics was the only system that could ever work. Who knew?

Re:Germany, where you can sell your power for more

[phantomfive]

We are not so good at World Wars and Empires.

In fairness, Germanic tribes were the ones who finally took down Rome (and more than once!)

Re:Germany, where you can sell your power for more

[blue9steel]

The free market is basically just an optimizer and anyone whose ever played around with one of those can tell you that you can do some very strange things to the results by adding a few constraints.

Re:Germany, where you can sell your power for more

[angel'o'sphere]

The current feed in rates are still far above competition. Especialky for old plants.
Only new set up solar plants have lower rates, and they are still high enough to make building new plants competitive.

Re:Germany, where you can sell your power for more

[Ol Olsoc]

The free market is basically just an optimizer and anyone whose ever played around with one of those can tell you that you can do some very strange things to the results by adding a few constraints.

In some cases, protecting the free market from itself. Free market is good, but humans? Not always wanting a free market after they've achieved some success.

Re:Germany, where you can sell your power for more

[Anonymous Coward]

By 2060 Germany will have 30% fewer Germans than it has today. Stop going after the pot of gold and start making babies!

Re:Germany, where you can sell your power for more

[Anonymous Coward]

If you were alive in the early 1900's, you would be against cars because all the problems that needed to be solved to make them viable, fuel stations, paved roads, etc, were not in place.

If we wait for something to be perfect before rolling things out we would get nowhere.

Myopia is easily cured ya know.

Jackass.

Re:Germany, where you can sell your power for more

[Anonymous Coward]

The free market has never existed, but as much damage as it has done in the past 10 years, that pales to when it was far less regulated.

A highly constrained free market(AKA democratic socialism) has proven to be far superior and less prone to failure.

Re:Germany, where you can sell your power for more

[blue9steel]

Oh I agree actually. Free market outcomes can be "optimal" and yet undesirable at the same time.

Re:Germany, where you can sell your power for more

[Anonymous Coward]

That is a good thing.

The US could stand to have 30% less people in 50 years.

Voted troll, seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone actually voted parent a troll !

Fun Facts

[prof_robinson]

The entire US power grid is just under 1000gw. 6.5gw of renewables is a rounding error. All these fancy new solar and wind projects have gas turbines on the premises to pick up the slack during off-hours. Their output is being included in the total output of the plant. So "renewable" isn't exactly "renewable", either. 60% of oil isn't even used for fuel. It used in derivatives - plastic, asphalt, etc. Even if renewables were as amazing in real life as they are in all of your heads, we will still need oil for some time to come. Sorry to break it to ya.

Re:Fun Facts

[Anonymous Coward]

"The entire US power grid is just under 1000gw. 6.5gw of renewables is a rounding error."

I really hate this argument, I call it the "lack of instant gratification" argument. You should instead be thinking "You eat an elephant one bite at a time" or the story of "a death of 1000 cuts".

So patience, grasshopper. We switched 0.6% of capacity to renewables in a year. Even at constant growth, that's 6% in 10 years and 30% in 50 years. Doubling the adoption rate gets you to 100% in 50 years.

You can doubt all you want, but the economics of solar and wind are a no-brainer when you are thinking on 20+ year timelines, as all utility companies do. You WILL see vastly more solar and wind capacity installed at the utility level, because it makes lots of MONEY over its lifetime.

Re:Fun Facts

[prof_robinson]

I - like many people - just want better energy. When Green energy is actually better energy, give us a call. Until then, these constant participation awards, massaged data and overly-optimistic expectations aren't helping anyone. When you actually find Better Energy, you will be amazed at how fast and cheaply it will be optimized and spread around the planet by the capitalist system. It won't take decades and suck up TRILLIONS in subsidies doing it. And, please: 50 years? There are so many other viable sources of energy that can be developed over that time. In fact, there are already better technologies than windmills...did you know that someone built a kite flying robot that cables the kite to a flywheel that creates energy? Not only is it airborne 24/7, stuck in the jetsream, generating power 24hrs...they are cheap to build and they can fit far more generating capacity in a much smaller footprint. Something like 1,000 kites can be controlled from a single square acre facility. But we're not going to see that anytime soon...because the current green dogma does not allow for it. They wants WINDMILLS, and that's all they're going talk about. So your "progress" is really just an obsession - that is delaying *actual* progress. Solar and wind do not *make money*. There is not one solar or wind project that has broke even or delivered over 50% of it's projected output. Tesla does not make money selling cars; they lose almost 7k on every car they build...but they make tons of loot selling the carbon offset credits they create in the process. See how that works? The only money being made is from artificial, highly subsidized transactions in government-created markets. That's not success; that's delusion.

1.1 Gigawatts!?

[Dahamma]

This year is notable because it will see the first new nuclear plant brought online in 20 years, contributing 1.1 GigaWatts to the grid

How is THAT supposed to get us excited.... it's not even enough to power a single time-traveling DeLorean.

Re:1.1 Gigawatts!?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're confused with the units. It's 1.1 Gigawatts, not 1.1 JIGGAwatts. FTFY

Deliberate weasel comparison

[dbIII]

Readers should note that nuclear decay means you want to use those fuel rods as much as possible so nukes are not something you turn off and use to cover only peak loads.

The above poster should be ashamed of their idealogical driven apples vs oranges comparison. This is supposed to be a tech site and not a political cheerleading site.

Is it truly renewable

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean isn't energy production finite and contribute to the heat death of the universe. Isn't this just another case of old white republicans hastening the ultimate end several trillion years from now. There is some black kid living in the year 1000234234213 will not be unable to use a toaster because some white person put a solar cell on his roof. Think of the children.

Fucking racist republicans.

Call me back when the scientist come up with a way to harness the power of magical ponies and rainbows. Then we will have true renewable energy.

Re:Is it truly renewable

[WillAffleckUW]

Call me back when the scientist come up with a way to harness the power of magical ponies and rainbows. Then we will have true renewable energy.

We did. There's a giant fusion reactor in the sky. Solar and wind are how you harness the output.

Unless you're wasteful and want to use the stored solar energy, but that has lots of pollutants in the conversion process from oil or coal.

More fraud from 'Climatedot'

[Anonymous Coward]

More 'global warming' bullshit from 'Climatedot', as usual.

Wind power is a scam, that can never reach more than a small percentage of total required energy generation, due to needing back up power stations, all the time, forever...

Nuclear 60-80% CF

[Anonymous Coward]

And that is less than that for ECONOMIC capacity factor, since half or more of that energy is produced at low demand times and is sold off cheap or even negative cost.

Whilst solar and wind tends to produce more at peak demands and that is a higher value time for power.

And adding in that wind efficiencies go up as time goes on and new more efficient designs roll out into the realworld and you have a VASTLY different picture.

But I DO find it amusing, predicable and pitiful that nuke fluffers (or the indistinguishable from rhetoric anti-renewable crowd) whine and cry about "CAPACITY FACTOR!!!!" when ACTUALLY USEFUL CAPACITY factor is far more useful.

It's no good producing 100% of demand from "reliable nuclear" rolled out with the necessary 50% extra backup generation if midday and 5-7pm peaks aren't being met and 10pm-5am troughs in demand mean you throw away almost all of that power.

Welcome

[freedom_surfer]

I for one welcome our new clean energy overlords...

Why shouldn't it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Expensive, inefficient renewable energy is mandated by the tyrannical leftist government. I expect President Trump to set things right and bring back hydrocarbons.

Great Scott!

[Pseudonymous Powers]

This year is notable because it will see the first new nuclear plant brought online in 20 years, contributing 1.1 GigaWatts to the grid.

That's a missed marketing opportunity. They could probably have doubled support for nuclear power in this country overnight if they could have made it to 1.21 gigawatts instead.

Re:Great Scott!

[WillAffleckUW]

We are building 1.44 Gigawatts of solar just on this campus.

Fission is for last century. Adapt.

Who?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's really bizzare that an extremely blatant liar is seen as "authentic",

Wait, you're saying someone thinks Hillary is authentic? Oops, my mistake, that's not what you're saying.

Oil Subsidies

[fyngyrz]

Specifically, what oil subsidies?

Specifically...

TL;DC: (too lazy, didn't click): Well over ten billion dollars a year in taxpayer funded support, quite aside from what the petroleum products actually cost when we buy them intentionally. Of course, that's just the US. Internationally, it's over half a trillion dollars yearly.

Personally, I would rather see that money go elsewhere, and have petroleum users pay the actual cost, as that would tend to cause the market to correct itself into an actual sane producer/consumer mold.

It's very reminiscent of buying a pizza. You think it costs X, and only when you buy the pizza: "Not buying a pizza tonight, I'll not be spending any money on pizza." Wrong. You pay social safety net costs that are incurred because Pizza Hut and so forth are paying workers less than a living wage so the cost of the pizza can appear to be lower. But it still costs what it costs; and you pay it anyway. It's just hidden in your taxes. Same thing for petroleum products. You're paying a lot more than you think you are, and it's not only when you actually buy the product.

In both cases -- Pizza Producers and Big Oil -- the businesses slough off the costs onto your shoulders indirectly, via government largess. I won't even eat at Papa John's (the pizza is horrifically bad) but I pay for that crap anyway. As a pizza lover, I find that offensive.

Walmart?

Same thing. They underpay, the taxpayer takes up the slack.

Etc.

Re: Oil Subsidies

[Bartles]

I said specifically.

Re: Germany, where you can sell your power for mor

[Anonymous Coward]

Real tragedy, designing plants to produce weapon fuels even if it made them produce instead of consume nasty byproducts.

GWh vs GW !

[macpacheco]

GW capacity doesn't matter.
We need to compare how many GWh each energy source will contribute.
A 1.1GW nuclear reactor means 95% availability long term, 98+% in the first 10 years.
A 5GW solar farm would be required to produce the same total energy.
At the same time, nuclear+solar is an interesting combo. Solar is reliable in its unreliability (aka we can forecast when it will produce).

Again, we'll see the same old solar+wind cheerleaders that don't understand how the grid works, and why we're not ready even for 1/3 solar+wind.
I'm pro solar, as long as we understand the limitations and respect them.
The cheerleaders on the other hand, don't even understand the limitations, so there's zero respect for them.
Hopefully in another 10 years battery grid scale battery storage will be here, and we'll be able to store excess solar production in the summer and excess wind production in the winter, and whenever wind falls short, baseload sources (nuclear or gas) will run at 100% through the night to make up for the shortfall.

1.1 Giga-Watts?

[gerald.edward.butler]

Couldn't they have done just 0.11 Giga-Watts more? That would've been the sweetest headline.