Solar Power and Batteries Are Encroaching On Natural Gas In Energy Production (electrek.co)

Socguy writes: The relentless downward march in cost of both solar and battery storage is poised to displace 10GW worth of natural gas peaker plant electricity production in the U.S. by 2027. Already we are seeing the net cost of combined solar and batteries cheaper than the equivalent natural gas peaker plant. Some particularly aggressive estimates from major energy companies predict that we may not see another natural gas peaker plant built in the U.S. after 2020. GE has already responded to the weakness in the gas turbine market by laying off 12,000 workers. Further reading available via Greentech Media.

Comments

Republicanism inbound with Russian accents

[Anonymous Coward]

"but if it's free from the sky how will the rich get richer"

Re:Republicanism inbound with Russian accents

[Anonymous Coward]

Das Vidana Fake News AC

Complete, total BS.

[Anonymous Coward]

You all clearly don't have a clue about how much energy is consumed in this country and where it comes from. Wind power, and solar ain't worth a pimple on a bull's ass in the overall scheme of energy use.

Oh and batteries don't generate electricity, they sink and store it.

You people must get all your "facts" and "knowledge" from listening to NPR. Oh brother!

Re:Complete, total BS.

[Anonymous Coward]

You clearly don't have sufficient reading comprehension to understand what is being claimed.
Key concept here is peaker plant production.
It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought ignorant, than to open it and prove it. - Mark Twain (IIRC)

Re:Complete, total BS.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Key concept here is peaker plant production."

That's much better, but it doesn't really address the Public Policy issue, which goes like this:
*Electrical Energy is generated based on Aggregate Demand. Certain kinds of Generation can be scaled back when not needed, like Hydropower, but increasingly Utilities are depending on inefficient smaller Peaking Plants to ramp up for expected demand beyond Aggregate. Unexpected demand leads to Brownouts and Blackouts, common in the Third World, and not uncommon enough in California.
*Energy Production has historically always been cheaper than Energy Storage to meet Peak Demand. Hydropower has usually been used in the past to pump water back up into Reservoirs using excess available Electricity, but this is geologically and geographically limited.
*Batteries are finally getting remotely reasonable for large-scale Electrical Storage, but at least another Order of Magnitude improvement in Costs are still needed.
*"Alternative" Production, after a few false starts, are finally making a dent in meeting Aggregate Demand, but the main value is in meeting Peak Demand, given suitable Storage.
*10GW by Solar is, given Aggregate Demand, not a hell of a lot. But with one "Simple Trick", it can make a lot of sense, and that Simple Trick is getting rid of "Surge Pricing", which has been experimented with in California now for a couple of decades, with varying levels of failure. I won't use the term Conspiracy here, perhaps others have a better word, but California currently has very little Surge capability left. The State, by Public Policy, lets the Utilities buy Out-Of-State Electricity at "Market Pricing", and as a result, the CPUC and CALISO are two of the most Corrupt Energy Arbitragers in the Nation. The State is still paying off their Enron debt. The CPUC is _finally_ being investigated for Corruption, and for their far too cozy Rubber Stamping of PG&E Rate Increases.
*Per Capita usage of Electricity is dropping at a steady rate, as Consumers and some Businesses make the switch to Energy Efficient alternatives. My daily consumption now for a small house is below 4KWh a day, down from ~10KWh a day a decade go.
*Almost by default, usually short-sighted Entrepreneurs are jumping in the long-term Energy Storage Biz. The Tech is almost here, the Demand is here now, but Public Policy is still lagging. My Second Home is already "Off the Grid", with Solar and Lead-Acid Battery Banks, and a back-up Diesel Generator. Once Lithium/Anythium Technology comes down in Cost, I'll make the switch to that, and by then, these will be Home Depot packages, and priced more than competitively Industrially, if...
*Various Tax Incentives exist, both for Consumers and Business, for the Generation of Solar Electricity, and that is a good start, but no incentives exist for the Storage of this Electricity. There are little or no Incentives here because the Public Policy has been Market Based on Surge Pricing, and any recent DOE studies on this have been eliminated this year by the sTrumpet That Shall Not Be Named.
*We, as usual, are going to be screwed.

Re: Complete, total BS.

[Anonymous Coward]

if...
*Various Tax Incentives exist

if...
*Someone else pays for it

FTFY

Re: Complete, total BS.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the heart of it.

Re:Complete, total BS.

[Rolgar]

It seems to me that long term, their can only be a one way migration from fossil fuel based energy to non-fossil fuel energy. Are we there yet? We haven't even gotten started. But I've been reading, and SRS Rocco Report has been publishing information that makes it sound like the US energy industry is in financial trouble (much like the financial problems in Russia, Venezuela, and certain others. https://srsroccoreport.com/u-s...

What that will lead to will be a shutdown of US production and/or a significant increase in the cost of fossil fuels, which will probably lead to a cost advantage for non-fossil fuel sources, which will begin a real migration in the US to solar, wind and other energy sources, and hopefully an increase in production of the equipment, which will hopefully provide increased economies of scale and help drive down costs. Since wind and solar don't increase in cost to produce, there is a ceiling there that will eventually force most places to switch (some may not as the cost of the cause the cost of remaining oil to go down significantly). The hardest (most costly) to extract will be turned off, and the oil and gas market should be much smaller than now.

Re:Complete, total BS.

[vipvop]

Shutdown of US production? Now that OPEC extended their cuts, with oil near $60/barrel the US shale production is ramping up like crazy, and expected to stay that way.

Re:Complete, total BS.

[stooo]

Oil is doomed.
Oil has already peaked.

Re:Complete, total BS.

[superdave80]

Oil has already peaked.

Wow, a post from 1970. I didn't know /. existed way back then...

Cobalt shortage?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the difficulty of getting enough cobalt included in these estimates? Natural gas is in high demand but the supply is keeping up. We yet to built all the batteries required for stable baseline power yet the cobalt supply is struggling.

Re:Cobalt shortage?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cobalt plays a role in the positive electrode of a lithium battery. Lithium air batteries seek to remove that. That said, Li-air batteries seem to still be a ways off. However, there is a good amount of progress in Na-air batteries in that there are solutions providing office building backup power off a series of Na-air batteries. However, Na-air batteries have their own sets of problems and what-not. However, people thinking that grid storage will be nothing but lithium are idiots.

Re:Cobalt shortage?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lil black nappy headed pygmy chillins eat watermelon and mine cobalt. Dat be da life, sho nuff !

Re:Cobalt shortage?

[Anonymous Coward]

Finding and murdering this inbred nazi faggot shouldn't be too hard right? $5.00

Re:Cobalt shortage?

[gbjbaanb]

I think the biggest issue is getting enough sun on them.

In the UK, we had a bit of weather on Monday, snow everywhere (was brilliant!) so on the day that we needed power the most - as it was bloody cold - all the solar panels were covered in snow, and the sky was cloudy, and as it was a snowy day (ie there was a big high pressure area over the UK) the wind farms were barely turning.

Net result, as seen from gridwatch was that renewables were providing about 5% of our energy demand.

That's the problem with renewables, great to reduce overall yearly carbon contributions, but useless on the worst days, which are the days when we need energy the most. So unless we can provide power from traditional sources, we would be screwed. The renewables lobby fails to appreciate that.

Re:Cobalt shortage?

[TheRaven64]

In the UK, we had a bit of weather on Monday, snow everywhere (was brilliant!) so on the day that we needed power the most - as it was bloody cold - all the solar panels were covered in snow, and the sky was cloudy, and as it was a snowy day (ie there was a big high pressure area over the UK) the wind farms were barely turning.

The reason it 'was brilliant!' was that it's so unusual. It was the most snow I've seen here in the last 4 years - no other day in that time has had enough snow that it hasn't melted by mid morning. As long as you have enough backup capacity, having the occasional day of no generation from solar and wind doesn't matter too much. A couple of days later, wind and solar are up to 20% in total.

The bigger problem is that most of the UK uses gas or oil-fired central heating. It's a lot cheaper than using electricity, so even if you switch the whole grid supply over to renewables you're still burning a lot of fossil fuels for heating (which is one of the largest single contributors to energy demand).

Re:Cobalt shortage?

[coofercat]

...and a large part of that gas/oil use is to heat water (either for hot water taps, or central heating systems). That can be (at least partly) achieved by wet solar, which weirdly still works when there's snow on top of it (within reason).

As noted, none of these options is a 100% solution to every problem, but they all form part of the patchwork that is our energy supply, both now and in the future.

Re: Cobalt shortage?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now only if there was some way to clean off solar panels... maybe some kind of long-handled brush...

Re:Cobalt shortage?

[Anonymous Coward]

No patchwork/batchwork/krakwork needed pad're. Fuck cobalt. Let progressive guilt-sters freeze-two-death. Renewables are an artificial constraint on human comfort ... no other criteria counts toward energy-use or for any behavior. So ... burn coal Bosco and watch them boilers steam !! Sure choke on the fumes, but first push progressives outside into smoggy-cold ... hehehe ... die warmist Rawlsian Trotsky bitch die!

Re:Cobalt shortage?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cobalt is the 32nd most common element in the earth's crust (more common than lithium), and is a waste product of nickle smelting. The problem is that there are few "concentrated" pockets for mining (it is more evenly distributed in the crust), with the top 5 nations being the Congo (53% global production), China, Canada, Russia and Australia, in descending order. So we are really facing another future political exploitation scenario of the Congo, rather than a true resource scarcity scenario.

Re:Cobalt shortage?

[Anonymous Coward]

LFP / LiFePO4 batteries do NOT use Cobalt

Re:Cobalt shortage?

[shilly]

Just to be clear: you made this comment on an article about solar AND STORAGE.

Re:Cobalt shortage?

[superdave80]

Yes, but daytime is when you should be generating and storing it, not sucking from your batteries (which you will need that night when there is no sun). Unless you plan your storage to account for this extra power (which will add to the overall system cost).

Re:Cobalt shortage?

[shilly]

This applies to a family with a home storage and solar solution, not so much to peaker plants.

Re:Cobalt shortage?

[gbjbaanb]

No point is storing anything unless you can generate excess. And right now, even on the best day of the year for renewables, they just about managed to hit 50%.

So that means we have to double the existing capacity, and even then it will not generate enough to be worth storing.

We'd have to build 4x the capacity to have enough to be able to store it for the following day, and even then I think most of the winter or even half the year would require fossil fuel generation every day.

Re:Cobalt shortage?

[superdave80]

Just to be clear: you made this comment on a post about solar AND STORAGE, not peaker plants....

Re:Cobalt shortage?

[shilly]

The article was about solar and storage replacing gas peaker plants. It is very sad for you that you struggle to keep all of these concepts in mind at once. It renders your comments ... more stupid than they already are.

Re:Cobalt shortage?

[shilly]

And by solar and storage, I don't mean domestic solar and storage, I mean grid scale.

Re:Cobalt shortage?

[superdave80]

You:

Just to be clear: you made this comment on an article about solar AND STORAGE.

You:

The article was about solar and storage replacing gas peaker plants.

It is very sad for you that you struggle to keep all of these concepts in mind at once, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE YOUR OWN COMMENTS. It renders your comments ... more stupid than they already are.

Re:Cobalt shortage?

[shilly]

The fact you see a contradiction between these two comments is a spectacular admission of idiocy. Sigh. I will spell this out for you seeing as you are too dumb to get it all by yourself. The article is about the ability of solar and storage to replace gas peaker plants. The post to which I responded said "but winter daytime weather makes solar useless", ignoring the fact that the article discussed not solar alone but solar and storage. Then you chipped in with your trump card of "but winter daytime weather means you'll be using not generating" and I pointed out that this would be true if we were talking about a domestic system, but isn't true for peaker plant replacement solar-and-storage. That's because:
1. Peaker plants (and thus any replacement solar-and-storage) typically only operate for a few hours in a day (morning or afternoon peak) and a few days in a year, so there is still plenty of generation time. Indeed if you go back to the original report and dig into the modelling assumptions, it's working off a 4 hour minimum per day use case ("the MISO definition of a Use Limited Resource") and "MISO historical peak hours typically correspond with HE15 through HE18 during summer months". Note *summer*, not winter. On slide 172 of the Stratagen report, they even have a handy-dandy graphic that shows quite clearly how peak demand hours mainly come immediately *after* a solar-and-storage system is charged.
2. Peaker plants (and thus any replacement solar-and-storage) are supplementing baseload only (and charging a pretty penny for doing so)
3. Solar-and-storage that replaces peaker is on a big enough scale to warrant maintenance, including keeping solar panels free of snow and ice, unlike a domestic system. So while generation will drop in the winter, it won't go close to zero (and in any event, that's not where peak demand occurs for this model, see #1 above)

http://energytransition.umn.ed...

It's beyond irritating that people like you expend all your (feeble) intellectual efforts trying to win rhetorically (including such pathetic playground devices as copying my phrasing), rather than actually learning about what is being proposed. And that it's so obviously beyond you to admit that a significant effort has been made to get the details of this rights, and that yes that does actually include accounting for the fact that snow falls in winter and irradiance drops, thank you very much.

Re:Cobalt shortage?

[shilly]

You know what I would love?

If one day, superdave80's rejoinder was "look, there's a mistake in the assumption on slide 166 in Appendix G about the scale of O&M costs for the net costs of CT, so the waterfall is out by about 42%, and here's my sources to back up what I'm saying". Instead, there's no thought whatsoever for fact-based analysis.

Re:Cobalt shortage?

[superdave80]

Wow, you sure do like to type things. If it makes you feel better, we can just both pretend that I read any of that.

Re:Cobalt shortage?

[shilly]

The fact you think I typed it for you alone is an excellent demonstration of:
a) your stupidity
b) your narcissism
c) your ignorance of how the internet works

Of course you didn't read it -- that would require a level of intellectual effort on your part that we both, if we're honest, know you're incapable of making. Much less engaging with the argument and responding in a thoughtful way. You stick to your world of pretense. I'm sure it's a happy place for you.

Not aggressive enough.

[Gravis Zero]

Look, if we're serious about addressing climate change then we'll need to ramp solar and wind to the point where they are widespread enough that politicians will stop turning a blind eye to the serious damage being done. This of course means either campaign finance reform or clean energy companies bribing politicians better. I'd like to see laws on the books that would require new commercial developments to include solar+battery for each housing unit.

The good news is that solar+battery installations are recursive self-improvement as each installation reduces the amount of emissions while decreasing the market price of solar installations. Elon really needs to get his battery factory building in gear!

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[ShanghaiBill]

I'd like to see laws on the books that would require new commercial developments to include solar+battery for each housing unit.

This is one of the dumbest things we could do. In order to make a real change, alternative energy HAS TO ACTUALLY MAKE ECONOMIC SENSE. Requiring companies to buy their products regardless of the efficiency will take away incentives to improve and impede progress.

"Feel good" subsidies and mandates only work in the 1st World, and nearly all growth in energy use is coming in the 3rd World, where they can't afford such foolishness. India isn't going to switch from coal to solar until solar is cheaper.

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[Maxo-Texas]

Seed money from the government is often very useful. They are not just "feel good" because existing methods have huge built in subsidies. For example..we spent 4,000 lives and 2 trillion dollars protecting oil.

There are large subsidies for coal, gasoline, etc.

Oil and Gasoline would be much more expensive without those subsidies and coal wouldn't even be remotely competitive.

That said, I agree that excessive subsidies and mandates can be counter productive.

As far as India goes.. uh. They have massive subsidy programs.

a) they don't want to be stuck in dead end technologies.
b) they don't want to sped a billion building coal plants that won't be needed before paying for themselves.
c) they really need to reduce pollution (which raises health care costs).

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[Freischutz]

Look, if we're serious about addressing climate change then we'll need to ramp solar and wind to the point where they are widespread enough that politicians will stop turning a blind eye to the serious damage being done. This of course means either campaign finance reform or clean energy companies bribing politicians better. I'd like to see laws on the books that would require new commercial developments to include solar+battery for each housing unit.

The good news is that solar+battery installations are recursive self-improvement as each installation reduces the amount of emissions while decreasing the market price of solar installations. Elon really needs to get his battery factory building in gear!

There is one way and one way only to phase out fossil fuels. You have to roll up your sleeves and make solar and wind so totally ridiculously cheaper than coal or natural gas that the bottom will fall out of the natural gas market because you can bet your bottom dollar that there is a delegation from the natural-gas /fracking industries in the White House now pounding a table yelling: "Something must be done Mr. President!!!". Next thing you know a delegation is on it's way to WTO headquarters to lobby for import tariffs on wind/solar tech to protect fossil fuels (if they haven't done all these things already) and the only way to beat that is make the alternatives so much cheaper they cannot be ignored even with protective tariffs in place. When the fossil fuel barons run to the politicians for protection, like the coal lobby has already done, you know you are winning.

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

G_N_A_A (G.A.Y N1GGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which
gathers G.A.Y N1GGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being G.A.Y N1GGERS.

Are you G.A.Y ?
Are you a N1GGER ?
Are you a G.A.Y N1GGER ?

If you answered "Yes" to any of the above questions, then G_N_A_A (G.A.Y N1GGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join G_N_A_A (G.A.Y N1GGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time G_N_A_A member.
G_N_A_A (G.A.Y N1GGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing G.A.Y N1GGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America. You, too, can be a part of G_N_A_A if you join today!

Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!

First, you have to obtain a copy of G.A.Y N1GGERS FROM OUTER SPACE THE MOVIE and watch it.

You can watch G.A.Y N1GGERS FROM OUTER SPACE on Youtube.

Second, you need to succeed in posting a G_N_A_A "first post" on slashdot.org , a popular "news for trolls" website

Third, you need to join the official G_N_A_A irc channel #G_N_A_A on EFNet, and apply for membership.
Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today!

If you are having trouble locating #G_N_A_A, the official G.A.Y N1GGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA irc channel, you might be on a wrong irc network. The correct network is EFNet, and you can connect to irc.secsup.org or irc.easynews.com as one of the EFNet servers.
If you do not have an IRC client handy, you are free to use the G_N_A_A Java IRC client by clicking here.

If you have mod points and would like to support G_N_A_A, please moderate this post up.

This post brought to you by Penisbird , a proud member of the G_N_A_A

G_____________________________________naann_______ ________G
N_____________________________nnnaa__nanaaa_______ ________A
A____________________aanana__nannaa_nna_an________ ________Y
A_____________annna_nnnnnan_aan_aa__na__aa________ ________*
G____________nnaana_nnn__nn_aa__nn__na_anaann_MERI CA______N
N___________ana__nn_an___an_aa_anaaannnanaa_______ ________I
A___________aa__ana_nn___nn_nnnnaa___ana__________ ________G
A__________nna__an__na___nn__nnn___SSOCIATION_of__ ________G
G__________ana_naa__an___nnn______________________ ________E
N__________ananan___nn___aan_IGGER________________ ________R
A__________nnna____naa____________________________ ________S
A________nnaa_____anan____________________________ ________*
G________anaannana________________________________ ________A
N________ananaannn_AY_____________________________ ________S
A________ana____nn_________IRC-EFNET-#G_N_A_A________ ________S
A_______nn_____na_________________________________ ________O
*_______aaaan_____________________________________ ________C
Gary Niger gary_niger@G_N_A_A.us G_N_A_A Corporate Headquarters 143 Rolloffle Avenue Tarzana, California 91356
Enid Al-Punjabi enid_al_punjabi@G_N_A_A.us G_N_A_A World Headquarters No.33 Kyutei Bld. 2F, Shinjuku 2-11-7, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, Japan ????????2??11-6
Copyright (c) 2003-2015 G.A.Y N1GGER Association of America

Ich Bindawalross (London) - G_N_A_A (NYSE:

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[Freischutz]

I'd like to see laws on the books that would require new commercial developments to include solar+battery for each housing unit.

This is one of the dumbest things we could do. In order to make a real change, alternative energy HAS TO ACTUALLY MAKE ECONOMIC SENSE. Requiring companies to buy their products regardless of the efficiency will take away incentives to improve and impede progress.

"Feel good" subsidies and mandates only work in the 1st World, and nearly all growth in energy use is coming in the 3rd World, where they can't afford such foolishness. India isn't going to switch from coal to solar until solar is cheaper.

Define ECONOMIC SENSE. Is economic sense calculating the total cost of using renewable energy sources AND their minimal carbon footprint? ... Or is economic sense to use coal/oil/gas count only the price of extraction/transport/energy-generation? Because that is how things usually work with people arguing that fossil fuels make more economic sense than renewables. The fossil fuel pundits never count the cost of the enormous carbon footprint of coal/oil/gas and the cost of the damage that carbon footprint does. Once you factor that in, the picture of the argument that coal/oil/gas make superior economic sense looks a lot weaker. The basic truth is that coal/oil/gas are wreaking havoc in the life support system of this planet (hint: the part of your environment that produces oxygen for you to breathe) that makes them a liability, economically, environmentally and even in the USA they will eventually become a liability politically. Coal/oil/gas is already a political liability in much of the rest of the world. But do continue to argue in favour of coal/oil/gas and ignore the fact that wind/solar/battery are already cheaper than coal and according to the summary they are now getting cheaper than gas. You seem like to type who'll enjoy being like one of those guys 20 years ago who kept arguing long after the writing was on the wall that digital cameras will never replace film cameras because of the superior quality of film.

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[AmiMoJo]

A better option is to mandate efficiency standards for buildings. The builder can meet them any way they like. In practice solar plus battery is the most cost effective option, but they can still choose the supplier and configuration.

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Economic sense" means positive return in the next quarter" - have you not got an MBA?

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[Citizen of Earth]

If we're actually serious about addressing climate change, we will use geo-engineering. The price tag is 1/1000th that of carbon, it will actually work rather than something that will be rejected after wasting tens of trillions of dollars and killing hundreds of millions of people with energy poverty, and it is effective after two years instead of 70 years.

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[ShanghaiBill]

Define ECONOMIC SENSE.

Economic sense: An Indian farmer in Uttar Pradesh installing a solar panel to reduce his electric bill so he can afford to feed his family.

Is economic sense calculating the total cost of using renewable energy sources AND their minimal carbon footprint?

Do you think a 3rd World parent with hungry kids gives a crap about "minimal carbon footprint"?

Look, America emits 14% of global CO2, and that percentage is declining. The growth in CO2 emissions is coming almost entirely from the 3rd World, and we need to find solutions that work there. Policies that make us feel good about reducing America's emissions, while leaving the rest of the world to pollute even more, are not constructive.

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[shilly]

The standards are already out there, like BREEAM: https://www.breeam.com/

But I'm skeptical that the current Trump administration would be interested in mandating that new builds reach BREEAM Outstanding, much though I might want it to happen.

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[dunkelfalke]

What does growth in energy use have to do with anything? The energy usage per capita of the third world is miniscule compared to the first world - especially the USA - energy usage. Lowering that, or at least, switch it to renewables, is the easiest and fastest way to curb pollution.

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Policies that make us feel good about reducing America's emissions, while leaving the rest of the world to pollute even more, are not constructive.

I saw an interview of an Indian person. She said the numbers of how much each nation creates pollution per person and the numbers obviously didn't look very good for the USA. Then she asked, why don't you first show you can reduce carbon on your own country and then come tell us how it is done.

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the easiest methods of helping with the climate change is to eat pork instead of beef. Or each chicken instead of pork. Or eat vegetables/insects instead of chicken. You don't even have to stop eating beef completely. If you can switch even a part of your diet, it will still have an impact.

“The biggest intervention people could make towards reducing their carbon footprints would not be to abandon cars, but to eat significantly less red meat,”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/21/giving-up-beef-reduce-carbon-footprint-more-than-cars

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[idji]

go please and look at what india is doing already in solar. they don't want pollution. look at New Delhi's air recently. They are jumping on solar as fast as they can.

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

Per-capita pollution numbers are bullshit, because you can reduce them by adding people, which, in practice, does not help the environment quality at all.
A better measure would be per-unit of country area or some such.

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can thank Germany for cheap solar cells. How did they do that? The "Erneuerbare Energien Gesetz", the law for renewable energy, gave electricity generated from renewable sources priority over other electricity sources and guaranteed a fixed price per kWh. The cost is now part of the electricity price in Germany: A couple of cents are added to the price of every kWh sold to cover the price guarantee for solar and other renewables*. That's because it did not make economic sense to install solar panels when they were a niche technology. A lot of the technological development and mass market expansion resulted from that political decision. Solar is price competitive now because it was given a chance when it wasn't price competitive yet.

*) The price guarantee has come down as the price for solar has come down, and the price guarantee is time-limited, so the "tax" is slowly going to go away. In 10 years, it will be almost gone, but the positive effect of that law is permanent.

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[pots]

alternative energy HAS TO ACTUALLY MAKE ECONOMIC SENSE

Alternative energy has always made long-term economic sense, the point of the article is that it now also makes short-term economic sense. Did you miss the part about solar+batteries being cheaper than natural gas? Here, I'll quote from the summary for you: "Already we are seeing the net cost of combined solar and batteries cheaper than the equivalent natural gas peaker plant."

And that's only how it is now, the cost of photovoltaic cells is still falling incredibly fast. It is now cheaper than any other option except wind and geothermal, and no one knows where it is going to bottom out.

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

Economic non-sense!

There are certain locations where solar and / or wind energy will not suffice due to the climate. 'Green' houses were tried in Michigan a while back, didn't last a single winter.

Everyone talks about a smaller foot print. But you have to have far more turbines and panels to replace a single coal/gas plant. So what is the footprint of a 1000 turbines? Doesn't it take nearly 1000 turbines to replace a single coal/gas plant?

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[WalksOnDirt]

Depends on the type of geo-engineering you're talking about.

Albedo management works for temperature, but does nothing about the acidification of the oceans. The type that may work involves removing carbon dioxide from the air, like ocean iron fertilization, burning biomass with carbon capture, or enhanced rock weathering. They all need more research.

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Do you think a 3rd World parent with hungry kids gives a crap about "minimal carbon footprint"?

He doesn't, but given the state of Indian coal plants, he might very well care about breathable air in the cities.

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[Namarrgon]

I'd like to see laws on the books that would require new commercial developments to include solar+battery for each housing unit.

This is one of the dumbest things we could do. In order to make a real change, alternative energy HAS TO ACTUALLY MAKE ECONOMIC SENSE.

It only sounds dumb if you keep ignoring the elephant in the room: external costs.

The economic fact of the matter is, fossil fuels cost us a lot more than the sticker price, and not only in nebulous future climate costs but in real, measurable damage to our health. US coal alone costs $300-500 billion a year, easily doubling the wholesale cost. When you look at the whole picture, it actually made economic sense to get off fossil fuels a long time ago, and what doesn't make sense is why people keep pretending these costs don't exist.

Since it's abundantly clear that the energy market is in no hurry to factor these external costs into their prices, the issue has to be forced - ideally by government evaluating full, levelised costs for all the alternatives then applying a suitable market correction (regulatory mandate, carbon price, cap & trade, whatever suits your politics), or the hard way - let the problem keep getting worse until the pain can no longer be ignored, and hope that the alternatives aren't too unattractive.

We've done exactly this in any number of other industries (sulphur emissions cone to mind), but the energy industry has been pushing back extra hard.

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[K. S. Kyosuke]

She said the numbers of how much each nation creates pollution per person and the numbers obviously didn't look very good for the USA.

Define pollution, dear Indian lady...

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[K. S. Kyosuke]

'Green' houses were tried in Michigan a while back, didn't last a single winter.

Apparently, Michigan engineers suck compared to the German ones.

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

Economic sense: An Indian farmer in Uttar Pradesh installing a solar panel to reduce his electric bill so he can afford to feed his family.

That's stupid, who the fuck focuses on a single isolated individual in order to justify an overall pattern?

Do you think a 3rd World parent with hungry kids gives a crap about "minimal carbon footprint"?

Do you think we should flip a shit about these hypothetical parents when there's billions more in the rest of the world, all of whom are happy for those parents to suffer anyway?

Look, America emits 14% of global CO2, and that percentage is declining. The growth in CO2 emissions is coming almost entirely from the 3rd World, and we need to find solutions that work there. Policies that make us feel good about reducing America's emissions, while leaving the rest of the world to pollute even more, are not constructive.

You'd be less of an idiot if you realized the shocking truth that American consumerism is a major driver of growth in the rest of the world's pollution growth? You think that adopting things in America (and Europe and Japan) won't open up the doors in the rest of the world for the same implementation?

Besides, what they really need is sanitation control, deforestation assistance, and yes, believe it or not, refrigeration.

All of which would be implementable with a decentralized wind and solar based system. But you're too busy being hysterical, as usual.

Stop being a turd, you know you're just stupid, don't you?

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

It Does Make Sense In The VERY MOMENT YOU THINK That Fossil Fuels Are a Postponed Cost To Clean Up. Your children and grandchildren are going to pay up at that time. Think about Fukushima and Chernobyl

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[Drethon]

So find a way to make alternative energy appealing enough to convince everyone to spend their own money to switch to alternative energy. Which seems like some of the other responses, get alternatives to the point that it makes economic sense.

While it seems like a great idea to have the government write laws to guide people in the direction that is best for everyone, the government represents the people and if you can't convince the people, it is hard to get the government to follow.

I think the only real hope is for researchers, and a few industrial visionaries like you mention in Musk, to get technology to the point where renewables truly make sense as a replacement to existing energy sources.

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[Mashiki]

Ontario did that. Electricity prices are now unaffordable, and the government just finished passing a law that stops the utilities from disconnecting people in the winter. Your entire idea hurts the poor.

So now I want you to tell me: How many days will you survive while it's -14C outside(in Southern Ontario), and you have no electricity, no other forms of heating.

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd love to hear how rooftop solar doesn't make economic sense.

Capital costs are generally paid back by electrical production in a matter of years, in most climates/latitudes that are favorable for photovoltaics, and the system has a significantly longer life than that...

So how does that not make economic sense? heck people in optimal climates can buy a solar system with a loan and make the loan payments with the money they aren't paying to the electric company, and even with the interest end up ahead.

I get that maybe the utilities don't like the idea, and I get that places like california are already in need of some storage solutions, and that is what the power companies should be building to remain relevant (unless they foresee a time when solar+battery is cheaper for the average home that solar+grid hookup, in which case maybe we should all be planning to go off grid... I don't think ti will be a problem in the near future, many of us have roofs incapable of supporting enough panels for 100% (more after conversion and storage losses) of our power until some one makes a breakthrough on pv efficiency, especially with the trend towards electric cars on the way.)

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[Subm]

By your definition it doesn't make economic sense to

- require seat belts

- require air bags or other safety features

- require catalytic converters

- prevent factories from dumping toxic waste into rivers and the air

- etc.

Not everyone considers human and environmental safety just "feel good" mandates.

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[drinkypoo]

If we're going to spend tax money on the electrical grid, let's actually spend it on the grid. And let's decouple grid management completely from power generation, while we're at it, and mandate net metering. That will do plenty to promote solar, and also pay other dividends.

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

We already knew that from the car industry.

Re: Not aggressive enough.

[WindBourne]

Actually, in America, I would like to see us require on new buildings below 6 stories, enough on-site unsubsidized AE to equal the monthly energy of HVAC usage. This leaves things up to builder how best to do things. More importantly, they can choose more insulation, better HVAC ( i.e. geothermal ) and lower the energy needed a great deal.

Re: Not aggressive enough.

[MachineShedFred]

Does your economic model figure in the massive subsidy that fossil fuels receive in the form of not having to pay liability damages for the hundreds of thousands of respiratory problems caused every year from externalization of the exhaust going up the stack?

If they started putting a rider in your generation charge to pay back the Medicare claims for downwinders, solar starts to look real good. And this doesn't even touch any arguments about climate change.

Re: Not aggressive enough.

[WindBourne]

Totally agree about 3rd world. It really is about what is affordable. In this regard, having first and 2nd world (including China ) install more AE equipment will lower costs. Oddly, many ppl do not realize it is cheaper to save watts, then to generate them. And when it comes to CO2, it is far more productive to STOP new production as those nations will push those plants to run 50+ years.

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[Freischutz]

Economic non-sense!

There are certain locations where solar and / or wind energy will not suffice due to the climate. 'Green' houses were tried in Michigan a while back, didn't last a single winter.

Everyone talks about a smaller foot print. But you have to have far more turbines and panels to replace a single coal/gas plant. So what is the footprint of a 1000 turbines? Doesn't it take nearly 1000 turbines to replace a single coal/gas plant?

A wind farm with 100 turbines would produce about 2-4 GW of power depending on the type of turbine. Larger wind farms are usually smaller than that. They consists of turbines in the 1.-4 Mw range but I have seen bigger ones. A wind farm of 2 MW producing 200 MW occupies an area of about 12 x 12 km. But building nothing but big wind farms is not what normally happens. What they are doing in Germany and Denmark for example is mixing together large wind farms with small clusters of them, dotted over the landscape and supplementing that with rooftop solar installations and batteries. Many farms in Northern Germany for example have wind turbines in the fields and every roof of every building and rain shelter on the farm is completely covered with solar panels. Same for the surrounding towns and villages. Apartment blocks in cities often also have their roof covered in solar panels and you are now seeing wind turbines even inside cities.

As for carbon footprint. A wind turbine represents a fairly large carbon footprint during manufacture and after that a minimal carbon footprint during decades of maintenance and operation. A coal plant represents not only a large carbon footprint during construction but also a large and steady carbon footprint during decades of operational use and it also generated other forms of pollution like for example sulphur dioxide. Gas plants also represent an enormous carbon footprint in construction and especially over their lifespan. The idea that a wind farm over 30 years of operation is going to match the carbon footprint of an equivalent (in power output) coal plant or even a gas power plant is quite frankly laughable. All studies I have seen show an order of magnitude lower carbon footprint (kg of CO2 per KWh) for solar and wind compared to coal, gas and biomass and it is usually wind that has the lowest footprint at about 1/4th the footprint of solar which itself has about 1/20th the footprint of coal/gas.

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

Feel awesome palsy ... that's what warmists do. But .... did a tax ever go-away in ten years ... or three ... or twenty ??? Betcha Germany still subsidizes wind-power ( 10% need production at max ) when the 1st new hi-efficiency coal plants are being built ... because cold folks get pissed-off while Gaia-fucking warmists droolers are still afraid of non-polluting NUKE !

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[jbengt]

A better option is to mandate efficiency standards for buildings.

Too late, already done. California has had mandatory efficiency standards for buildings since at least the 1980s. Most building codes currently include energy efficiency standards, at least in the US. I believe there's a federal mandate for states to adopt an energy code in order to receive certain federal funds.

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[Freischutz]

A wind farm with 100 turbines ...

That should have been 1000 turbines.

Re: Not aggressive enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

As Germany goes back to burning coal (lignite) because they turned off all their nuclear power.

Yes, really.

Much smarter, they are.....

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

" India isn't going to switch from coal to solar until solar is cheaper."

Actually no. Just like China, they switch because they don't want to suffocate.

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[jbengt]

You have to roll up your sleeves and make solar and wind so totally ridiculously cheaper than coal or natural gas that the bottom will fall out of the natural gas market . . .

Too late, the bottom has already fallen out of the natural gas market. Nobody's drilling new fracking sites at today's prices.

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[dcw3]

Don't blame Michigan engineers for the poor practices of the companies and unions they had to work with.

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is my oddity, solar has its place in the mix, just as hydro, just as gas and coal. And nuke. But, as the earth changes, as business development does not make the resource cheaper to use. Does electricity cost the same as the 1920's, no, it costs the consumer more. Does it cost society more to create the "new" electricity? No, more has gone to profit taking, then investment to infrastructure. Keeping an underclass. The only differences now, less security of product, it's not a set value, but, an approximate value. If you understand motors, and power supplies, you can see fluxiations of values to a uneconomic setting.

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[dcw3]

I was on a business trip to Germany last year, and went to visit an area where I used to live in the 80-90s about an hour west of Frankfurt. It's mostly very hilly farmlands, but generally very beautiful country. I'm not by nature against wind farms, but there were turbines all over, and IMHO, it was an eyesore. I could see why people would get all NIMBY about this. Is there a practical reason they couldn't be grouped closer together? Does that somehow reduce their efficiency?

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[bluefoxlucid]

It makes economic sense. We have a lot of reserve agricultural land we don't want destroyed, and which isn't necessary for environmental management. Pay a subsidy to retain it; make half that subsidy conditional on only covering the full costs of installing new, non-permanent solar generation capacity on that agricultural land. Simple, efficient, and cuts into the cost of electricity. Retains our farmland. Uses some of the sunniest areas to collect solar energy.

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

And America has way way less than 14% of the population.
It takes 8 Indians or 2 Chinese to put out as much CO2. Time to put the blame where it should be. America shouldn't get a free pass to pollute because it's rich and used to it. They need to cut much more aggressively before pointing the finger at others just trying to catch up to the wasteful US lifestyle.

Re: Not aggressive enough.

[WindBourne]

In fact, to add to bill's point, China is currently building another 700 coal plants ( this is after stopping the 100 ). About half are foreign. China is going to add new coal plants to nations that do not even have coal and continue to sell them coal. Keep this in perspective. Each of those are ~1 GW or China is adding another 3/4 TW of coal plants. Instead itakes far more sense to make these solar/wind, but nuclear SMR should be an option. But coal is the worst option going.

Re: Not aggressive enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

Another blame everyone but yourself poster. Why would a 3rd worlder care to stop having the benefits of electricity that you do? Why should he pay for your excess when you use 10 times, or more, the CO2 that he does? Either it ok to pump out as much as you do, and so let them at it, or it's not and you need to fix your own problems first.
Why are you entitled to the CO2 and not them?

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are going to measure Carbon Emitters by Land Area, then the top 5 polluters are Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Japan, then Germany. The USA would be 10th on the list, and China 15th.

Looks like Europe needs to get their act together, they have 8 out of the top 10.

Re: Not aggressive enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are you entitled to put out CO2 and not them? Either your level is acceptable, so they can do it too, or you need to reign in your own mess. It's a bit rich looking down from your ivory tower to tell the peasants they can't have a 2 story house because it's too tall.

Re: Not aggressive enough.

[WindBourne]

this really shows one of the biggest issues, which is inefficiency by gov and business. if America would start taxing goods/services based on where worst part comes from, use satellites to get precise measurements, and normalize based on kg /$GDP, then it would stop all the coal growth quickly.

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[thegarbz]

In order to make a real change, alternative energy HAS TO ACTUALLY MAKE ECONOMIC SENSE.

It already does make economic sense. Long-term macro-economic sense.
The problem is that we don't think in this way, only "what is the best possible money I can make before I bail out of this". That is in the grand scheme short term and very localised.

NOTHING our industry currently does makes this same kind of sense. We already have an incredible amount of regulations, we already have compliance related costs, and all of these comes from the governments in the interest of the general population at the expense of the enrichment of each specific working entity. Such a rule would be perfectly in line with that as well as not being unexpected in an industry that already needs to follow a long string of town-planning based requirements.

India isn't going to switch from coal to solar until solar is cheaper.

I'm actually really glad you mentioned India: https://economictimes.indiatim...

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not the growth that is the problem it's the absolute level. Just because some countries were very dirty before doesn't give them a free pass to keep polluting. Who are the rich entitled people to say to poor undeveloped or developing countries that they are not allowed to do exactly what you already do. Simply because you got their first?
Any solution that says to poor people you cant be rich because we already have all the money too bad, is not likely to be listened to by the poor countries anyway. You tell a thirsty person he cant fill up his bucket because you already used up the quota to fill your swimming pool. And he will tell you to fuck off and take some water back out of your pool.

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[Gravis Zero]

Ontario did that. Electricity prices are now unaffordable, and the government just finished passing a law that stops the utilities from disconnecting people in the winter. Your entire idea hurts the poor.

This is actually one of the few good points, the poor are hurt most by people leaving the grid. It's precisely this reason that we should be fully subsidizing solar+battery installations for people below the poverty line. Subsidies should be a gradient so that people just above the poverty line aren't hit the hardest.

The massive number of solar installations that would start occurring would be a boon for the unemployed who could then get jobs as installers.

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[Mashiki]

The massive number of solar installations that would start occurring would be a boon for the unemployed who could then get jobs as installers.

The problem in Ontario isn't the unemployment it's that most jobs being created are service sector jobs. Those jobs you're talking about as installers? Short term work, maybe a year, maybe two. Then you're right back at the same problem. On top of that, the problem is the cost of electricity is so high in many places that people can barely scrape by between rent and electricity. The peak rate is 0.185/kWh when most people are doing anything. The poorest try to use electricity in off-peak(after 8pm) already. Everything you're suggesting have already been tried and done, and the exact opposite happened. If you live in say Toronto, Kitchener/Waterloo, London, or Ottawa and you make $30k/year? You're barely making ends meet and using food banks so you don't starve to death. The minimum wage is $11.40/hr now.

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[Gravis Zero]

Those jobs you're talking about as installers? Short term work, maybe a year, maybe two. Then you're right back at the same problem.

Nobody said it was a permanent solution, just a boon.

On top of that, the problem is the cost of electricity is so high in many places that people can barely scrape by between rent and electricity.

You conveniently ignored a vital section of my post: "we should be fully subsidizing solar+battery installations for people below the poverty line. Subsidies should be a gradient so that people just above the poverty line aren't hit the hardest."

So those people that can't afford it would suddenly not have to pay for electricity.

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

"So what is the footprint of a 1000 turbines? Doesn't it take nearly 1000 turbines to replace a single coal/gas plant?"
Wind farms have a very large footprint boundary but only use a very small amount of the actual land and the "fuel" is free.
For coal & natgas, you should factor in the footprint of the mines or drilling sites that supply them which would also include environmental damage, stream pollution, water table contamination.
Calculating footprint, whether for renewables or fossil fuel is not easy and always much, much bigger or impactful than most realize.

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[nasch]

the acidification of the oceans

Maybe we should pour, like... lots and lots of baking soda into the ocean.

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

Gasoline would be much less expensive if government didn't tax it so much.

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[Mashiki]

You conveniently ignored a vital section of my post: "we should be fully subsidizing solar+battery installations for people below the poverty line. Subsidies should be a gradient so that people just above the poverty line aren't hit the hardest."

No, I just missed it. It doesn't work like that here, it's too expensive. It's cheaper to build a gas powerplant in the middle of nowhere in Ontario then it is to subsidize the cost of solar+batteries or even wind. The people who suddenly can't afford to pay for electricity, couldn't afford the cost to do this even with 80% subsidies in the first place. Things are really that bad.

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[Khashishi]

Economists tell us that the correct thing to do is to tax the externalities instead of subsidizing. Of course, we never do that.

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[Gravis Zero]

The people who suddenly can't afford to pay for electricity, couldn't afford the cost to do this even with 80% subsidies in the first place. Things are really that bad.

read closer, i wrote "fully subsidizing" meaning it would be free for them.

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[Khashishi]

Perhaps if we led, the world would follow. But we stopped leading a while ago.

Re: Not aggressive enough.

[vipvop]

Don't forget they also import massive amounts of Russian natural gas

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[Khashishi]

Plants also require sun.

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[shilly]

So glad you're really confident about this. I feel very reassured. You wouldn't be able to provide any actual evidence to back up your numerous really quite bold assertions, would you, by any chance?

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[Ichijo]

By your definition it doesn't make economic sense to
- require seat belts
- require air bags or other safety features

Without them, people would drive more safely to protect themselves, and this would make the streets safer for people who walk and ride bikes.

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[mbkennel]

Peak rate of 0.185 per kWh? Canadian dollars? ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! That's kitten stuff.

San Diego peak rates: 0.54297. http://regarchive.sdge.com/tm2/pdf/ELEC_ELEC-SCHEDS_DR-SES.pdf

The problem is rent.

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it does. Each one disrupts the flow of the air, creating turbulence. Turbulence leads to less power getting transferred to the blades. The faster the wind, the more distance is needed before it goes back to being a smooth flow of air.

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[bluefoxlucid]

The area under solar panels can support shade-tolerant grasses (and full-sun-intolerant grasses). The area around can support low-growing cover like micro-clovers, clovers, and some short-growing grasses. This is relatively-common and nurtures the land, preventing erosion and soil death.

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[Maxo-Texas]

>Gasoline would be much less expensive if government didn't tax it so much.

And it would be much more expensive if the government didn't subsidize it and allow companies making and distributing gasoline to push their costs off onto the public.

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are large subsidies for coal, gasoline, etc.

Oil and Gasoline would be much more expensive without those subsidies and coal wouldn't even be remotely competitive.

I'm not sure that there are actually subsidies. I keep reading articles (like this one) claiming there aren't any, and I have never seen reference to exactly what those subsidies are. If there are, please provide examples.

Note: I hate coal and want all coal plants shut down; and the sooner we transition to solar plus batteries, the happier I will be; and I personally switched to an electric car (a used Tesla, the cheapest one I could find, still really expensive). I am in no way an apologist for the oil and coal industries. But every time I see a +5 moderated post complaining about subsidies, and I ask for examples, I get no examples and get moderated down to -1.

Also, please don't suggest that our military operations in the Middle East should be counted as a "subsidy" for oil. A country does things for more than one reason, and I'm not convinced that oil was even the most important reason for the USA's military (mis)adventures in the Middle East.

If George W. Bush really cared more about oil than anything else, then why didn't he order our soldiers to occupy the oil production facilities and just start taking some oil? Just claim that USA would take just enough oil to recompense the USA for the expense of the military operations, then cook the books and take it all anyway. If the "Blood for Oil" theory was correct, why didn't the USA just steal all the oil when it had the chance?

P.S. Posting anonymously, as I'm tired of being modded down to -1.

Re: Not aggressive enough.

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Germany isn't "going back to burning coal"; Germany was already burning coal but the decrease of it slowed down somewhat because of the nuclear phaseout.

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[K. S. Kyosuke]

If anything, the most meaningful issue is IMNSHO carbon emissions per economic output. Germany emits quite a lot, for example, but it's also very productive.

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI your estimate of number of lives spent maintaining the petrodollar is out by 3 or 4 orders of magnitude.

Not that it undermines your wider point or anything, I'm just wondering where you came up with such a low ball number.

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[Maxo-Texas]

Here's six of them.
"(not counting 2 trillion dollars and 4000 lives in a war over oil)

Intangible drilling oil & gas deduction ($2.3 billion)
Excess of percentage over cost depletion ($1.5 billion)
Master Limited Partnerships tax exemption ($1.6 billion)
Last-in, first-out (LIFO) accounting ($1.7 billion)
Lost royalties from onshore and offshore drilling ($1.2 billion)
Low-cost leasing of coal-production in the Powder River Basin ($963 million)

As subsidies age, they start to look less like subsidies. They start looking like fixed features of the landscape, like mountains or rivers, rather than choices we are making. They just look like the status quo.

In terms of permanent tax expenditures, fossil fuels beat renewables by a 7-1 margin:"

https://renewnd.areavoices.com...

In the 2015-2016 election cycle, oil, gas, and coal companies spent $354 million in campaign contributions and lobbying and received $29.4 billion in federal subsidies in total over those same years â" an 8,200% return on investment.

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

"A 2016 study estimated that global fossil fuel subsidies were $5.3 trillion in 2015, which represents 6.5% of global GDP.[3] The study found that "China was the biggest subsidizer in 2013 ($1.8 trillion), followed by the United States ($0.6 trillion), and Russia, the European Union, and India (each with about $0.3 trillion)."[3] The authors estimated that the elimination of "subsidies would have reduced global carbon emissions in 2013 by 21% and fossil fuel air pollution deaths 55%, while raising revenue of 4%, and social welfare by 2.2%, of global GDP."[3] According to the International Energy Agency, the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies worldwide would be the one of the most effective ways of reducing greenhouse gases and battling global warming.[4] In May 2016, the G7 nations set for the first time a deadline for ending most fossil fuel subsidies; saying government support for coal, oil and gas should end by 2025.[13]"

https://www.huffingtonpost.com...

"Oil Change International has released a new study this week that evaluates the progress that G20 nations have made toward phasing out these subsidies. The results are not pretty. No subsidies have been eliminated since the pledge was taken in 2009, and even more disturbingly, G20 countries are simply changing the definition of what subsidies are in order to claim progress.

In short, the G20 is cooking the books and cooking the planet. As the graphic below shows, there is likely more than $1 trilion annually provided for the production and consumption of oil, gas, and coal. Thatâ(TM)s a lot of money to be wasting and hiding, and it could be put to far better use for education, hunger, poverty, renewable energy, and many many other uses. "

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Ga...
"I have posted frequently (most recently in a three-part series that starts here) on the topic of underpricing of energy in the United States, but we are not the only offender. Many countries around the world subsidize consumer energy prices in ways that bring them to levels even lower than what U.S. consumers pay. These policies burden the rich and the poor alikeâ"rich countries like Saudi Arabia and poor ones like Egypt, and within each country, both rich and poor citizens.

Who subsidizes fuel prices and why?

Many countries around the world subsidize fuel prices. A recent

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[Mashiki]

read closer, i wrote "fully subsidizing" meaning it would be free for them.

Doesn't work that way in Canada, not enough money. Let me explain simply how strained resources are, 13k illegals from the US showed up in Quebec and Ontario and broke the welfare system. Private charities that cover only heating, and get 90% of their funding from the government for the year had spent it all by December of the previous winter seasons(2016). No money for your pipe dream, none at all. It again makes better sense to build cheap NG plants and push the price of electricity down.

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

It again makes better sense to build cheap NG plants and push the price of electricity down.

No it doesn't, because you're ignoring one thing: democracy.

In a democracy, "what makes sense" isn't based on science or math or those fancy things, but by voters. Voters decide what makes sense to them, and voters aren't necessarily good at math or science or basic logical thinking.

The liberals won in part by canceling that power plant and going green green GREEN, even if it cost taxpayers like a billion dollars just on canceling the plant, and then more in higher electricity prices. To them, the liberals made "more sense". I mean, most people think feminism makes sense, and global warming makes sense, and that it makes sense to decide for young children what gender they identify as, etc.

Also remember that in a democracy you aren't always given the best options. All three major parties opposed building that power plant. Here's an article saying that Hudak said he would kill the plant if he won back in 2011

After the scandal and it became apparent it's stupid to support cutting power plants, the conservatives pushed support for nuclear and NG instead of solar and wind... but their plans still made less sense, as they tie all that to their platform of cutting the crap out of, like, everything. It simply didn't make sense to most people that we could somehow find that much efficiency/savings from cutting government to not only pay off the debt, but improve services.

For what it's worth, this characteristic of democracy goes both ways. It makes no sense to elect Trump in a logical sense, but the people choose him, so in a democratic sense Trump is the candidate that makes the most sense. I'm sure a lot of liberals are triggered just by me saying that. It makes no sense to them, but it makes sense for Trump voters, and they apparently had more votes (in the EC), and that's what matters in a democracy.

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[Gravis Zero]

Doesn't work that way in Canada, not enough money.

Well if it doesn't work in Canada then it must be impossible for the whole planet! Oh wait, that's not how reality works.

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[fygment]

Ontario is an interesting case. Overall, it produces enough electrical to cover all it's power requirements. Unfortunately, it cannot control production sufficiently to follow demand so at peak. Equally unfortunately, it has negligible electric storage capacity and that is everything. No matter how you cut it, 'fossil' fuels still represent the most efficient energy storage at hand, and the means of extracting energy from 'fossil' fuels are well established, increasingly efficient, and cost effective. Build a better battery and they will come, but until then ...

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[Mashiki]

Well if it doesn't work in Canada then it must be impossible for the whole planet! Oh wait, that's not how reality works.

I'm pointing out the flaws in the reality of your idea. You can take it or leave it like that as you want. The reality is: If a country/state/province/etc doesn't have the money for it, your idea is never going to happen.

Re:Not aggressive enough.

[MercTech]

"Define ECONOMIC SENSE. Is economic sense calculating the total cost of using renewable energy sources AND their minimal carbon footprint? ... Or is economic sense to use coal/oil/gas count only the price of extraction/transport/energy-generation? Because that is how things usually work with people arguing that fossil fuels make more economic sense than renewables. The fossil fuel pundits never count the cost of the enormous carbon footprint of coal/oil/gas and the cost of the damage that carbon footprint does. Once you factor that in, the picture of the argument that coal/oil/gas make superior economic sense looks a lot weaker. The basic truth is that coal/oil/gas are wreaking havoc in the life support system of this planet (hint: the part of your environment that produces oxygen for you to breathe) that makes them a liability, economically, environmentally and even in the USA they will eventually become a liability politically. Coal/oil/gas is already a political liability in much of the rest of the world. But do continue to argue in favour of coal/oil/gas and ignore the fact that wind/solar/battery are already cheaper than coal and according to the summary they are now getting cheaper than gas. You seem like to type who'll enjoy being like one of those guys 20 years ago who kept arguing long after the writing was on the wall that digital cameras will never replace film cameras because of the superior quality of film."

If you are talking about primary source batteries; what do you do with the tons and tons and tons of toxic hazmat from the chemicals produced during the battery's lifetime? If you are talking TESLA type STORAGE batteries; they don't make electricity just store it with huge losses in the conversion going in and coming out both.

      For the typical solar panel, it would take 15 years to generate the amount of electricity needed to make one due to the high temperature annealing process required. The mean lifetime of solar panels at full power generation is around 5 years.

    With the efficiency of electric motors, electric generators, and conversions for electric to chemical energy in batteries, the overall system is extremely inefficient with a lot of losses. If most of your electric power comes from fossil pants in your area; an electric car causes more fossil fuel to be burned than a typical gasoline engine. It just doesn't get burned in your back yard.

What actually makes sense is using Hydro/Nuclear for base loads. Those techs are most effective when brought to full load and left to run there for months at a time.
Fluctuating load to be covered by Coal/Oil/Gas (Daytime run during high use shut down to hot standby after the evening domestic peak)
Wind generation in areas where possible to reduce need for Coal/Oil/Gas use. (Geographically and weather dependent. Can't be relied on or even implemented in many areas.)
Diesel or Gas turbine for peaking loads when and if needed. (Expensive but on line within an hour from cold shut down.)

If you drop all needs for high capacity loads such as industrial uses; you can change up the model. A bedroom community with no light or heavy industry can be powered by solar/wind and battery leveler with a diesel peaking unit. Rather like the Edison model from the early 20th century that got supplanted by the Westinghouse model of ginormous electric plants running full capacity all the time and expensive long distance transmission lines.

Solar Power an Batteries Encroaching

[backgroundpi1]

It's good that solar power and betteries costs are being cheaper. These energy sources would be better for our environment http://www.backgroundpi.com/

Re:Solar Power an Batteries Encroaching

[identity_pi]

God point! If we take care of the environment, the environment will take care of us. https://www.identitypi.com/ team

Blame Net Neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

Net Neutrality is slowing down and even preventing the deployment of internet in the more rural areas. The implications are many, including environmental ones.

Best remove these extraneous, unhelpful, and unfair internet regulations. Opposition to this effort have no arguments other than fear-mongering. They are mainly paid shills with the aim of increasing the reach of the main web advertisers at the cost for the carriers...

Well duh

[slashmydots]

It's almost like solar panels are magic devices that spit out free money from thin air. I'm glad that investors and business owners are finally realizing that. The only think standing in the way was the payoff period/return rate and with scale, it's a lot better now.

It depends of load factor

[Anonymous Coward]

The cost of power of a gas plant are higher. The power of battery technology is cheap. But a battery at full power only serve from minutes to hours while the gas plant could serve 24x7. So, the fixed costs make the gas plant less and less competitive with the drop of it's load factor. When you only need to cover a hour from time to time, batteries are now more competitive.
In the 24x7 occurs the opposite. Other plants, like coal, has greater fixed costs, but fuel are normally cheaper, so high load factor make coal more competitive than gas, while gas remain the most competitive in intermediate load factors while there is not enough renewables (solar+wind) that are the cheaper but not constant production.

With the improvement of batteries, the gap of profitability of gas will narrow, although because solar + wind are displacing coal first, it probably remains in the energy mix for decades as the best option for this kind of demand (medium load factor + not enough wind and solar).

Re:It depends of load factor

[Anonymous Coward]

Flow batteries, on the other hand, could store very cheaply the energy, so if some scalable technology comes in scene a good prices, could kill gas easily.

Re:It depends of load factor

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Car battery died 3 days ago. I payed about $70 for that battery years ago, now the price was $140. Cheaper my foot...

Re:It depends of load factor

[Anonymous Coward]

i agree, i just bought gasoline in my motor car and its like 3$ a gallon, last time i got gas it was 50 cents.
 

What a waste

[Anonymous Coward]

So of all the carbon based energy sources, solar and batteries are replacing the one generally considered the least harmful....nice

Re:What a waste

[shilly]

Your logic is all wrong: there's a net benefit in terms of lower CO2 and other emissions when any fossil fuel plant is replaced by solar & batteries (and indeed wind & batteries). Sure, the benefit is larger when the fossil fuel is coal, but that will happen in time. Peaker plants deliver pricey on-demand power, so of course they are the first to be rendered uneconomic. But as solar/wind/batteries scale, costs will drop further and baseload coal and other sources will also be displaced (and in practice this is also already happening, just the change is slower than with peakers because the price differential isn't as favourable for renewables yet, plus assets have longer shelf lives, plus Trumpy loves his coal, etc)

Unreliable Peaker Plants is a bad idea.

[pigpilot]

A very poor comparison as Peaker Plants only operate at peak demand so will naturally be more expensive than the baseload plants. The most important factor in building such plants is that they are able to produce the power when needed, regardless of weather which is something solar and wind power plants cannot guarantee.

Reliance on solar and wind will result in either increasing baseload capacity to the point you don't need Peaker Plants (an expensive option) or more likely accepting more brownouts when supply cannot meet demand.

Re:Unreliable Peaker Plants is a bad idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is why peakers are being replaced by solar/wind AND STORAGE, which is the focus of the article and is there in the slashdot summary, you muppet.

Re:Unreliable Peaker Plants is a bad idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

at stupidly costly prices and unrealiability, the fucking batteries don't last long enough to make a real difference, and once they are spent you have a brown out, which would not happen with a gas peaker plant.

just more eco-loon stu-fucking-pidity

Re:Unreliable Peaker Plants is a bad idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

at stupidly costly prices ...

It's right there in the article - building Solar + Battery will cost less than building a new Gas plant.

and unrealiability

Citation needed. I would expect that solar panels (no moving parts) plus batteries (also no moving parts) are likely to be more reliable than turbines and generators.
Unless you mean unreliability of the sun. Well not *that* unreliable if you build in a desert. And that's what the batteries are for anyway.

the fucking batteries don't last long enough to make a real difference

Peaker plants only come on for short periods. Match the battery capacity to the length of this period and ... they make a real difference.

just more eco-loon stu-fucking-pidity

just more bigoted biased non-scientific stu-fuck-pid-wittery

Re:Unreliable Peaker Plants is a bad idea.

[AHuxley]

AC the eco-loon people have a solution for that too.

The short term use of generators. Large diesel generator will be used in a community. Every community. Just in the short term. For a few years.
That will allow a nation time to get loans for huge amounts of batteries.
Dont call them diesel generators. Try a nice new term like hybrid turbines. That just happen to run on diesel.
No load shedding, the batteries and solar are working. The need for diesel generators is only short term.

Hide the diesel generators as a very temporary solution for a very long time.

Re:Unreliable Peaker Plants is a bad idea.

[AHuxley]

AC its not about "moving parts"
Batteries have a real cost to install.
Large amount of new batteries can only put so much back into the national grid.
Batteries stop working after some time. Then its time to pay for more new batteries.
Remove the old batteries and start again with new batteries.

Re:Unreliable Peaker Plants is a bad idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

Batteries stop working after some time. Then its time to pay for more new batteries.
Remove the old batteries and start again with new batteries.

Generators and Turbines stop working after some time. Then its time to pay for new generators and turbines.
Remove the old Generators and Turbines and start again with new Generators and Turbines.

Your point is?

My point is that the costs for all of this are factored in - and solar + battery is coming out as cheaper than Natural Gas. Your argument simply shows your bias.

(By the way - batteries can be easily replaced piecemeal while the plant is running, and also can be recycled very effectively into new batteries - neither of which is true for turbines and generators)

Re:Unreliable Peaker Plants is a bad idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

Peakers can - and sometimes do (especially in Southern California) run for days on end. How big of a battery do you need to support that? And most peakers have 4-8 turbines, so if ONE is down, you still have most of your capacity - and it can be repaired in a few weeks at most.

Re:Unreliable Peaker Plants is a bad idea.

[skb.ee.duke.edu]

I agree with the above post. Solar/wind + storage should be augmenting/replacing baseline power, not peakers. Peakers are needed to fill in the gaps that come from intermittent demand, or drops in supply.

Re:Unreliable Peaker Plants is a bad idea.

[Headw1nd]

If you had bothered to read the article at all (I know, it is slashdot) you would have seen that it's mostly about cheap energy storage displacing peaker plants. And the person they quote on this is the CEO of NextEra Energy, who is hardly an "eco-loon" as another comment implies. Solar is just one method of baseload generation.

Re:Unreliable Peaker Plants is a bad idea.

[angel'o'sphere]

There are three or if you want four levels of power generation.

Peak load
Load following
Base load

And Balancing power. Basically what you american layman call peak, because you have no name for what people in the industry call peak.

Battery storage as a power source, is excellent for Peak and Balancing power, as Base load it makes no sense.

(Balancing Power is provided by the plants that can react in seconds to demand changes ... most of them have a high CF ... "ordinary Peakers" have very low CFs ... they are off at night when only base load is pumped into the grid)

Re:Unreliable Peaker Plants is a bad idea.

[Bengie]

There are plenty of case studies, albeit in optimal climates, where solar/wind plus batteries are the cheapest form of energy generation and have paid themselves over just in operational costs in a matter of years, and that's all without government subsidies. As costs continue to exponentially fall, more and more climates will be good enough. The Middle East has a multi-hundred megawatt solar farm with batteries that is cranking out stable power at a cost of around $0.05. They were able to under-cut a natural gas plant, which has an absurdly cheap source of fuel for an area in the world that is laden with that fuel type.

Re:Unreliable Peaker Plants is a bad idea.

[crunchygranola]

Peakers can - and sometimes do (especially in Southern California) run for days on end. How big of a battery do you need to support that?

CItation needed. You are describing yet another type of plant - a load following plant that comes on line for a period of up to days during periods of high demand. In California the most efficent combined-cycle gas plants are used for this, not peaker plants. More precisely CC plants are used for load following by throttling their output up and down. They are never idle.

It is fallacy to argue that some corner cases exist where this will not work (as well) to assert that the entire approach is flawed.

climate change is an leftist plot

[Anonymous Coward]

to steal our stuff

Umm, batteries? Energy production?!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I checked, batteries didn't produce energy, they merely stored it.

Did I miss something?

Re:Umm, batteries? Energy production?!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Last I checked, batteries didn't produce energy, they merely stored it.

Did I miss something?"

Yes, since you have your head where the sun doesn't shine, the batteries are also for when the sun doesn't shine, at night.

Hahaha no, they're not

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, batteries are not a means of producing energy. So, they don't count - at all - even though the power grid has used hot sulfur batteries as storage for decades.

Second of all, these statistics are very misleading because they only include natural gas that is used to produce electricity, not that which is used to produce heat or locomotion. The primary use case for natural gas is producing heat, not electricity.

Re:Hahaha no, they're not

[Anonymous Coward]

Batterier can change a "produce when the sun shines" plant into a "produce when the need is greatest" plant, and even an "absorb excess from elsewhere and release it later when the need is greater" facility.

USian here

[Anonymous Coward]

Out of curiosity, how common is it in UK to use geothermal heatpumps (also known as heatpumps with a ground loop) in private residential housing? This can make electric heatoing 3 or 4 times more efficient.

Re:USian here

[coofercat]

I'd say "not very" - it's available here, but it hasn't really 'caught on'. We're just getting into domestic solar (that's really taking off actually, but it's still a tiny minority of people who have it). Some people have some wet solar to heat water, but that's got an even smaller penetration than electrical PV.

What we do have though, is quite a large amount of green generation into the grid (be that synthetic gas, or electricity). That industry is largely driven by consumer choice of supplier - some suppliers are now able to exclusively buy green energy to service their customers (others buy green first, then brown if they have to).

Re:USian here

[Anonymous Coward]

Brown? Is that a common term for non-green sources?

Re:USian here

[wyHunter]

It is barely used in the USA either - because of cost to use them.

Gas turbine peakers

[Anonymous Coward]

Are expensive to run. They are inefficient and the hotter the outside temperature is the more inefficient they are. And they are basically jet engines so they need a lot of maintenance. Battery prices are declining so as soon as it dips below the price difference between baseload generated power and peak generated power then the peakers GT are gone.

Re:Gas turbine peakers

[Anonymous Coward]

Heat rate from an LMS100 is lower than a coal plant. Not as expensive or inefficient to run as you think they are. And no they are not "basically jet engines" anymore that is false and old information. All gas turbines require outage maintenance anyway. As would wind/solar/battery installations - they don't have 100% availability.

If levelized cost drops below natural gas peaking plants, it could happen but I will tell you after 30 years of my professional career in designing power plants watching different energy storage tech come and go (and there are many that have been tried) so far no one has beaten the simplicity of a gas turbine that can start quickly. I would love to see it though.

Here's my prediction: everyone alive today will be using electricity from fossil fuels their entire lives. There will always be new technology that supplants the old but you are kidding yourselves if you think fossil fuels will be eliminated completely before the end of the century.

Re:Gas turbine peakers

[Anonymous Coward]

The real reason peakers are dying is because CCNG plants don't cost that much more to build and can "demand follow" much more quickly, easily and cheaper than any other base load generator.

In other words A DIFFERENT FORM OF NATURAL GAS POWER PLANT IS REPLACING NATURAL GAS PEAKER PLANTS (not renewable sources).

The argument that renewable sources has anything to do with dismantling peakers is insane. In fact, renewables are likely DELAYING the retirement of these peakers since they have to keep them around just in case the renewables aren't working that day. Battery capacity on renewables is more of a "load smoothing" type activity to help manage the grid for intraday peaks an valleys (e.x. a single cloud rolls by for 15 minutes doesn't disrupt the flow to the grid). Nowhere on earth are renewables charging up batteries for a week+ with solar to discharge during a cloudy week at the same output level. And it laughable to think about how the seasonal effects on solar are considered. It could be argued any peaker usage during the winter is a direct result of solar winter/summer imbalance.

Listen to an earnings call of Next Era Energy, a HUGE electric utility and proponent of renewable energy. They literally state that they are retiring peakers and coal because of their new CCNG plants. They have every opportunity to say its because of their extensive additions to wind and solar and get extra super greenie points BUT THEY DON'T (because it is not true). And believe me, this corp take EVERY opportunity to tout their greenie status.

Re:Gas turbine peakers

[angel'o'sphere]

They are inefficient and the hotter the outside temperature is the more inefficient they are.
Not ore inefficient than any other thermal power plant, like a nuclear or coal plant.
The temperature difference regarding outside heat is close to irrelevant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Gas turbine peakers

[shilly]

Well sure, fossil fuel electricity (and energy) won't reach zero any time soon. But I'd be much more interested in your professional perspective on how the mix is likely to change over the next thirty years -- what will it look like in 5, 10, 15 years time, etc?

Re:Gas turbine peakers

[stooo]

>> they are basically jet engines so they need a lot of maintenance

Jet engines don't need a lot of maintenance.
In fact they run for many years without any maintenance at all.

Re:Gas turbine peakers

[stooo]

>> Here's my prediction: everyone alive today will be using electricity from fossil fuels their entire lives

That's already very wrong today. A quarter of humanity gets electricity from renewable. statistically. In 2016.
Renewable electricity: 24,3% in 2016 including biofuels.
Fossil electricity: 75,8% in 2016 including nuclear.
https://www.iea.org/newsroom/e...

Correlation != causation

[RogueWarrior65]

GE expanded rapidly into the gas turbine market because of the high demand to replace coal-fired power quickly due to regulation. Now that that business is functioning efficiently, the workforce doesn't need to be as big.

About Time

[Anonymous Coward]

Peaker plants have always been the low hanging fruit for solar since their forte in power generation coincidences with peak demands...air conditioning.

Seems to me that solar/battery is simply taking its proper place in the power generation mix, which is NOT base load power generation.

So Congratulation people, you've finally reached the point that everyone was saying you should reach...as opposed to your Utopian plans to replace all fossil fuel generation.

Re:About Time

[stooo]

it will happen gradually.
First it'll replace the peak.
Then, when the price of storage drops even more, it'll replace base load.

Storage can be based on many technologies,
But only batteries have actually a strongly falling price (-20%/Year). That's because they simply scale well

Yesterday this same site reported on

[bferrell]

a forecast of battery shortages due to vehicle demand. That was predicted last year with a forecast of a "hockey stick" price rise in batteries.

That little factoid isn't mentioned here and THAT is the entire flaw in battery land. capacity is dependent on physical "expensive" batteries; electrical "tanks" that are semi-expensive to make and very much to be in demand. Hdrogen... Well, gas storage tanks are MUCH cheaper and easier to make in huge volumes.

In the movie, Mrs Robinson, the word was plastics (and kind of still is).

Now the word is infrastructure (tank manufacturing/sales). Not kewl or sexy, but in the long haul...

Re:Yesterday this same site reported on

[Locke2005]

Energy per unit weight is the limiting factor for electric vehicle batteries. Weight is not a constraint for stationary batteries, so other more cost effective technologies can be used. Of course, one dirty little secret nobody mentions is that lithium ion batteries can be damaged by cold weather, in addition to being much less efficient. So we would like to see a battery technology with a much wider temperature range.

Re:Yesterday this same site reported on

[Anonymous Coward]

The story on ElecTrek was about a report/statement from Hyundai saying battery prices may stop dropping in 2020 because of increased demand. But as ElecTrek rightly pointed out, as demand increases it enables more money to be put into developing batterries, which will drive prices down even further as production scales up to meet that demand. There's no shortage of materials, and even if there were, as demand goes up, it means even more ways of getting the materials will appear. Go back and read the story again, especially the section labeled "ElecTrek's Take".

Re:Yesterday this same site reported on

[bferrell]

dig past the current story. That's NOT their take a few weeks back. Other analysis are showing the same demands are driving prices up, not down

GDP is a bullshit metric for this

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you idiot. Straight of the bat GDP is constantly growing in the world and is an objective of every government. So as GDP goes up, so does the pollution. I though you were trying to reduce it?

2nd GDP is a terrible measure. Just use make work programs with no actual benefit to anyone to inflate your GDP numbers so you are allowed to pollute more. Invest in empty cities and bridges to nowhere, it's lose lose. The extra building will pump out more CO2 and the increase in GDP will make it acceptable to pump out even more on top. You couldn't have picked a worse measure if you tried.

Re:GDP is a bullshit metric for this

[WindBourne]

LOL.
You have always been a fuck up, but this one takes the cake.
First, adding to your GDP, will only add on average, the same amount of CO2. After all, the whole point is that normalization produced an AVERAGE of the CO2 / $ GDP. Add 1M to GDP and you just added a bunch more CO2 to accomplish it. The ONLY way to game this one, is to lower your CO2, OR increase the $GDP, with the same CO2.

Then you speak of adding a bunch of construction of empty buildings. I can not imagine a WORST way to increase your GDP. Why? Because your nation does such a HORRIBLE job on construction WRT environment and CO2. You erect bamboo scaffolding and then throw away the bamboo after the project. That means that you have to go harvest a lot more of it. Your equipment is actually some of the highest polluting in the world. Your approach to making Concrete is huge on CO2 emissions. One of the worst in the world. And you think that building a bunch of empty buildings will actually cause your CO2 / $GDP to go down? Not a chance.
THe ONLY way to game this, would be to raise your money against the dollar, which would then mean that your exports would fall, since the costs are not being subsidized. IOW, by doing CO2 / $ GDP, there is no real way to game this.

And if America was to simply make the tax slowly increasing and make the bottom 10% of the nations pay 10% of that tax, and so on, there would be a STRONG incentive for nations and states to drop their CO2 emissions so as to get into the lower brackets. Note that businesses would then simply push the various govs to clean up, or they would shift the parts and final work elsewhere. Of course, if the nations that pick up the slack do not work towards lowering their CO2 while increasing their GDP, they will move up the ladder on CO2.

So, yeah, this is the ONLY way that it will work correctly. Per capitia is worthless.

Re:GDP is a bullshit metric for this

[crimson tsunami]

LOL. You have always been a fuck up, but this one takes the cake. First, adding to your GDP, will only add on average, the same amount of CO2. After all, the whole point is that normalization produced an AVERAGE of the CO2 / $ GDP. Add 1M to GDP and you just added a bunch more CO2 to accomplish it. The ONLY way to game this one, is to lower your CO2, OR increase the $GDP, with the same CO2.

Can you seriously be this dense? $1M of added GDP will always have the same CO2? So a $1M coal power station will have the same CO2 as a $1M solar farm? Or $1M worth of philosophy majors sitting around thinking about things.

Then you speak of adding a bunch of construction of empty buildings. I can not imagine a WORST way to increase your GDP. Why? Because your nation does such a HORRIBLE job on construction WRT environment and CO2. You erect bamboo scaffolding and then throw away the bamboo after the project. That means that you have to go harvest a lot more of it. Your equipment is actually some of the highest polluting in the world. Your approach to making Concrete is huge on CO2 emissions. One of the worst in the world. And you think that building a bunch of empty buildings will actually cause your CO2 / $GDP to go down? Not a chance.

That is probably his whole point. Massive waste and CO2 production is ok as long as you increase GDP enough to cover it. Environment be damned.

THe ONLY way to game this, would be to raise your money against the dollar, which would then mean that your exports would fall, since the costs are not being subsidized. IOW, by doing CO2 / $ GDP, there is no real way to game this.

And how are you going to force GDP to be measured the same way in different countries? Do you really trust the Chinese statistics? Their inflation and every other adjustment to GDP you will have no problem with?

So, yeah, this is the ONLY way that it will work correctly. Per capitia is worthless.

GDP is worthless, only per capita is a useful measure.

Re:GDP is a bullshit metric for this

[Anonymous Coward]

So just having a carbon tax would be much simpler and fairer. Good luck getting Republicans to go for it, and Trump to sign it into law.
If America wants to cut itself off from world trade, the rest of the world will carry on without you. But where will you get your cheap trinkets? Make them at home? LOL then who will be able to afford them? Good luck getting re-elected after you that to the rest of your country.
Total non starter.

Re:GDP is a bullshit metric for this

[Anonymous Coward]

If only bamboo was a renewable resource. Oh wait, it grows like bamboo. And hardly anywhere uses it anyway.
The rest is just more made up alt facts. Their concrete is the worst in the world, show why Mr alt fact. Equipment is worst in world, show us Mr alt facts.
Yuan has already risen and still rising against the dollar, More alt facts? How much did their exports fall. Oops Mr alt facts they still went up.
Is anything you say not just made up and completely wrong?
China's CO2 per GDP has been and will continue to get better anyway.

Put your money where your mouth is

[Anonymous Coward]

Offer to build them solar/wind if you think it's more affordable. I'm sure they would agree. The worst option for them is to miss out on stable electricity and a rising standard of living because America already used up all the worlds CO2 quota. If you have a better option, sell it too them.

You cant have coal tomorrow because you didn't have it yesterday. You cant have a car tomorrow because you didn't have one yesterday. You have to keep your small house, not allowed to have a bigger one because a guy in a big house said so. You cant eat as much meat as I do tomorrow because you only ate vegetables yesterday. My standard of living is fine for me, but don't you dare to aspire to it. You can't have it because you didn't get there fast enough.
Is that really what you are telling poor people. And you expect them to listen to you?

Even Gas companies are going Solar

[ripvlan]

I work next door and overlook the roof of the major natural gas supplier in my state- they own pretty much all the pipes in the state. Do you remember those "NG fuel cells" that were all the rage and would aid large energy consumers in states like CA? You'd think they would install those to reduce their electric bill.

Well the gas company just installed solar panels on the roof of their building last month. Corner to corner.

Everyone gets it. It's cheaper. Yes, the state does have incentives to turn solar power into a financially rewarding endeavor.

Of course they are coated with 4 inches of snow right now. But hey.

Re:Even Gas companies are going Solar

[Anonymous Coward]

Care to provide us with the name of said gas supplier?
Meanwhile, snow... been saying for years the solution is simple... install a heat cable on the back of the panel. Runs on electric. Turn it on remotely when ever it might snow/ice. Just need to get the panel up to above freezing. once one small area is melted, sunlight should do a pretty good job handling the rest, as solar panels get hot.

Re:Even Gas companies are going Solar

[Locke2005]

Even the Kentucky Coal Mining Museum is now running off of solar power, which deserves some kind of award for irony!

Leaving the stone age...

[Anonymous Coward]

We didn't leave the stone age because we ran out of rocks.

Long story short

[Locke2005]

Solar and wind power generation by themselves don't reduce the amount of peak power production capacity by other means necessary, since peak demand can coincide with times with no sun or wind. However, if an energy storage media is available, then all power needs can be met by just enough solar and wind capacity to meet _average_ demand -- which is significantly lower than peak demand. I always imagined pumping water uphill into a reservoir to feed hydroelectric turbines as a way of storing power, but if batteries really become cheap and reliable... I'll take whatever works.

Re:Long story short

[crunchygranola]

Solar and wind power generation by themselves don't reduce the amount of peak power production capacity by other means necessary, since peak demand can coincide with times with no sun or wind. However, if an energy storage media is available, then all power needs can be met by just enough solar and wind capacity to meet _average_ demand -- which is significantly lower than peak demand. I always imagined pumping water uphill into a reservoir to feed hydroelectric turbines as a way of storing power, but if batteries really become cheap and reliable... I'll take whatever works.

In the bigger picture we should be using high voltage DC lines, a proven 80 year old commercial technology, to ship power long distances so that peak demand cannot coincide with times with no sun or wind since the sun and wind resources of the entire continent is connected together. It never happens that no sun and wind is found anywhere.

And by the same token pumped water storage can be used for the entire national grid, not matter where the storage is.

With a properly implemented national grid the use of batteries should be pretty small.

Re:Long story short

[steveha]

I always imagined pumping water uphill into a reservoir to feed hydroelectric turbines as a way of storing power

It's not just something you imagined; it's done all the time.

pumped-storage hydroelectricity

However, all the really good sites for this have already been built, and if you try to build more, environmentalists will try to block you.

The battery technology I am keeping my eye on is liquid metal batteries as developed by Ambri. Their batteries are heavy so they would be lousy for cars, but for massive fixed power installations the weight wouldn't matter. They had some engineering details to figure out but I guess they got things working a year ago. I'm not sure why we haven't heard more news about them, maybe they have customers quietly trying out their batteries and they don't have any large-scale buys yet. Or I wonder if there is some catch I haven't figured out. But this would appear to be a more cost-effective solution than lithium ion batteries, if it works.

http://www.windpowerengineering.com/industry-news/ambri-reaches-milestone-commercializing-liquid-metal-batteries-grid-scale-storage/

No Cobalt

[stooo]

Big Batteries for EVs or storage are usually LiFePo4, they do not use Cobalt, they have a 5x-10x longer lifetime.

By selling collection systems.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

"but if it's free from the sky how will the rich get richer"

By selling collection systems.

"It's raining soup. So I want to sell buckets."

Back in the late '60s, when I invented (and tried to patent) an improved solar focusing mirror system, I named it "the bucket" in reference to that line.

(Didn't pursue the patent after the search found a portable microwave antenna using the same principle, granted in 1953. When I DID get around to getting a bunch of patents, a couple decades ago, I found out that an initial rejection was almost pro forma, to be followed by an appeal listing why this patent is different from those the examiner thought might be related. Of the eight or so patents I've gotten so far, only ONE was so new and different that it went through without that "Why is it different from all this similar-sounding stuff?" appeal stage.)

What an entitled asshole you are

[Anonymous Coward]

Typical American, I'm rich so I'm entitled to pollute.
My little country is allowed to pollute much more than India because we are rich. And India isn't even allowed to build electricity to catch up because it will pollute too much.

Logic fail, you're a fool

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL.

First, adding to your GDP, will only add on average, the same amount of CO2.

What kind of complete and utter garbage is this?
So America builds a 10 GW coal plant, and China builds a 10GW coal plant.
By the 'magic of windbourne thinking', the American plant is less polluting because America's GDP is higher than China's.
You haven't the slightest clue have you?

Your post even gets more stupid from there.

Is that all? Alberta is doing 500 GW of wind

[WillAffleckUW]

Seriously, how much of a third world nation is the USA if you can't even keep up with Canada?

BS Comparison

[MercTech]

Peaker plants, such as gas turbine plants,have always been the most expensive way to generate electricity. Peaker plants are what you need if you are depending on solar, wind, or both for your base load.

If the sun don't shine, the wind don't blow and the water in the river is way way low; peaker plants all fire up nice.