Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   2014 was hotter than 1998. 2015 data in yet?
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 357 (775934)
01-06-2016 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by LamarkNewAge
01-06-2016 7:39 PM


Re: Im waiting for the final 2015 data.
Nothing beats solar.
If you're really talking about the supply of energy, lots of things beat solar: coal, oil, hydro, a horse on a treadmill.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-06-2016 7:39 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-06-2016 8:26 PM Jon has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


(1)
Message 32 of 357 (775935)
01-06-2016 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Jon
01-06-2016 8:05 PM


Re: Im waiting for the final 2015 data.
Enough energy reaches the earth from the sun in 1 hour to supply all our current energy "needs" that we currently use. It should be pointed out the much of the world is still developing, so current "needs" represent an inadequate state of development.
Maryland has 10,000 square miles. It would only take a few square miles of solar panels (on top of roofs) to fuel the energy needs of the entre state.
Here is the summer 2014 worldwide situation as shown by Al Gore
quote:
The cost of electricity from photovoltaic, or PV, solar cells is now equal to or less than the cost of electricity from other sources powering electric grids in at least 79 countries. By 2020 — as the scale of deployments grows and the costs continue to decline — more than 80 percent of the world's people will live in regions where solar will be competitive with electricity from other sources.
No matter what the large carbon polluters and their ideological allies say or do, in markets there is a huge difference between "more expensive than" and "cheaper than." Not unlike the difference between 32 degrees and 33 degrees Fahrenheit. It's not just a difference of a degree, it's the difference between a market that's frozen up and one that's liquid. As a result, all over the world, the executives of companies selling electricity generated from the burning of carbon-based fuels (primarily from coal) are openly discussing their growing fears of a "utility death spiral."
Read more: Page not found – Rolling Stone
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook
So your claim that
quote:
If you're really talking about the supply of energy, lots of things beat solar: coal, oil, hydro, a horse on a treadmill.
is just a bunch of hot air devoid of reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Jon, posted 01-06-2016 8:05 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Jon, posted 01-06-2016 9:23 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 357 (775937)
01-06-2016 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by LamarkNewAge
01-06-2016 8:26 PM


Re: Im waiting for the final 2015 data.
Time for some citations.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-06-2016 8:26 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-06-2016 10:14 PM Jon has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


(1)
Message 34 of 357 (775938)
01-06-2016 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Jon
01-06-2016 9:23 PM


While you go for citations
I would like for RAZD to do the best he/she can to show us his/her energy bill for each year before and after his $15,000 investment. It is going to be complicated because he/she said something about needing to change over his/her water from gas to electric, which will enable him/her to use the energy produced by his/her solar panel.
We can calculate when he/she will "break even".
(And don't forget the macro-economics! The much promoted - via massive self-serving propaganda & buying-up of politicians - fossil fuels are part of an enterprising industry which prefers limits to production to keep energy prices up. RAZD said that his solar panels help to reduce REDUCE REDUCE the bill for his neighbors because solar is part of an industry that wants prices to keep on getting lower - in fact, they always do. The macro-economics leads to current utility bills - presently using fossil-fuel based energy - falling at least in half over time ONLY WHEN REPLACED WITH SOLAR as the Howie Hawkins New York plan shows. Macro-economical argument also looks at the economic growth that we get when energy prices are halfed)
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Jon, posted 01-06-2016 9:23 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Jon, posted 01-07-2016 7:00 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 357 (775957)
01-07-2016 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by LamarkNewAge
01-06-2016 10:14 PM


Re: While you go for citations
Me go for citations?
You can't be that dense.
I want evidence from you to back up your claims about solar's amazing capabilities.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-06-2016 10:14 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by RAZD, posted 01-07-2016 8:19 AM Jon has replied
 Message 38 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-07-2016 9:30 PM Jon has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 36 of 357 (775960)
01-07-2016 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Jon
01-07-2016 7:00 AM


Re: While you go for citations
Me go for citations?
Curiously I think you both need to provide citations to objectively review this argument:
Nothing beats solar.
If you're really talking about the supply of energy, lots of things beat solar: coal, oil, hydro, a horse on a treadmill.
Especially the horse on a treadmill bit ... (a little hyperbole perhaps?)
Personally I think LamarkNewAge is right in the long view, and that in the short view the costs are fairly balanced.
And I've put my money where my mouth is.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Jon, posted 01-07-2016 7:00 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Jon, posted 01-07-2016 1:45 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 41 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-08-2016 12:26 AM RAZD has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 357 (775991)
01-07-2016 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by RAZD
01-07-2016 8:19 AM


Re: While you go for citations
We'll see where we can go with this.
I've posted on this topic elsewhere and can start by giving some links to those posts later tonight.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by RAZD, posted 01-07-2016 8:19 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 38 of 357 (776038)
01-07-2016 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Jon
01-07-2016 7:00 AM


o.k.
I have an October 2015 Consumer Reports which shows how consumers have saved $2,500 per year on more efficient appliances(in 2015 $) since Carter made it a priority in 1977. It was what Al Gore was referring to, early in his long RS piece, as a 50% reduction in total "energy intensity" since 1980. But the same October CR article tells how large utility companies that want to charge a "fixed rate" to consumers, because utilities can't stand that consumers efficiency is eating into profits. The "utility death spiral". I will get around to quoting it in a while (cant be accessed online). There are some related solar-panel issues I will quote as well.
Here is a Forbes article on the issue, and it centers around "net metering". It is mostly pro-net metering
Net Energy Metering -- Are We Capitalists Or What?
Here is an anti net-metering article
The Hole in the Rooftop Solar-Panel Craze - WSJ
(if link doesn't allow you to read text then put "the hole in the rooftop solar panel craze wall street journal" into google .)
Here is a quote from the informative article which has a hyper link to a pro-solar academic study
quote:
According to a recent Energy Department-backed study at North Carolina State University, installing a fully financed, average-size rooftop solar system will reduce energy costs for 93% of the single-family households in the 50 largest American cities today. That’s why people have been rushing out to buy rooftop solar panels, particularly in sunny states like Arizona, California and New Mexico.
The primary reason these small solar systems are cost-effective, however, is that they’re heavily subsidized. Utilities are forced by law to purchase solar power generated from the rooftops of homeowners and businesses at two to three times more than it would cost to buy solar power from large, independently run solar plants. Without subsidies, rooftop solar isn’t close to cost-effective.
Recent studies by Lazard and others, however, have found that large, utility-scale solar power plants can cost as little as five cents (or six cents without a subsidy) per kilowatt-hour to build and operate in the sunny Southwest. These plants are competitive with similarly sized fossil-fueled power plants. But this efficiency is possible only if solar plants are large and located in sunny parts of the country. On average, utility-scale solar plants nationwide still cost about 13 cents per kilowatt-hour, versus around six cents per kilowatt-hour for coal and natural gas, according to the Lazard study.
Large-scale solar-power prices are falling because the cost to manufacture solar panels has been decreasing and because large solar installations permit economies of scale. Rooftop solar, on the other hand, often involves microinstallations in inefficient places, which makes the overall cost as much as 3 times higher.
So why are we paying more for the same sun?
The article has hyper-links
Here is a google link leading to lots of (somewhat negative)WSJ articles on solar. Including that one above
Google
The Stanford professor, Mark Jacobson, is a respected & leading scientist. He recently had a big study showing the economic value in building hundreds of thousands of huge windmills along the gulf coast, because they will reduce a category 3 hurricane down to category 1, and a category 5 down to a category 3. He peer-reviewed the Howie Hawkins energy plan. There is a hyper-link to a Stanford PDF in this link (below). Ill quote the paragraph where the hyper-link is.
What's Wrong With Cuomo's Energy Plan? - CounterPunch.org
quote:
Fortunately, there’s the recent peer-reviewed study by a team of Stanford and Cornell scientists, engineers, and economists that demonstrates the technological and economic feasibility of converting to New York State’s all-purpose energy system to 100% carbon-free energy in 17 years (Mark Jacobson et al). This goal and this plan should be the starting point for a state Energy Plan.
The main thrust of my argument (which will become more clear when I type in the Consumer Reports text) will be that the solar industry seems to prefer lower prices for its product while the other industries consider it a major calamity when prices drop. Solar looks like the future, from a pro-growth economic standpoint.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Jon, posted 01-07-2016 7:00 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Jon, posted 01-08-2016 8:30 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 39 of 357 (776042)
01-07-2016 10:25 PM


Consumer Reports October 2015
quote:
p.38
POWER STRUGGLES
Energy efficiency is good for the planet and your wallet. But behind the scenes, industry forces want consumers to foot the bill for lost revenue.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY has come a long way from the evening in February 1977 when President Jimmy Carter put on a cardigan and told Americans to turn down their thermostats. Thanks to more energy-efficient practices and products, ranging from refridgerators to lightbulbs to central air-conditioning, the average American spent $2,500 less on energy in 2014 (adjusted for inflation) than he or she would have if no improvements had been made, according to a June 2015 report by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.
The article mentions the "utility death spiral" and utilities charging fixed rates to punish more-efficient users. The best price per watt deals are given to those who use the most electricity! This issue doesn't even touch on solar issues and "net metering". Consumer Reports has a petition on p. 43 to fight the fixed rate increases of utilities.
Right wing radio has been extremely critical of "charging consumers upfront for more expensive appliances" and LED bulbs. They wont mention the macro-economic benefits (lower utility prices FOR EVERYBODY that should come from lower demand) because utility companies simply get upset at lost profits and thus raise prices to compensate. Very upset. So don't expect right-wing radio shows to praise the reductions in energy intensity, because the hosts support an economic model (for-profit utility companies) that prefers higher prices for energy(contrary to their oft-repeated claims).
Below is a solar article.
quote:
Soak Up The Sun
Considering solar? Critical questions you need to ask.
p.40
SOLAR PANELS - also called photo-voltaic (PV) cells - can reduce your monthly bill by 50 percent. ...Despite that growth, solar provides only a little more than 1 percent of total electric-generating capacity in the U.S. Going solar isn't a slam dunk for everyone.
....
p.41
The typical installation costs about $15,000 to $21,000 in the U.S., according to the Solar Energy Industries Association.
If you install a system before Dec. 31, 2016, you're eligible for a federal tax credit equal to 30 percent of the amount you spend.
....
Solar panels are usually warranted to last 20 to 25 years, and the systems often pay for themselves after five to 10 years, so you have the potential for free electricity for the rest of their lifetime.
The sad part is the paltry 1% electrical generating capacity. Imagine the macro-economic benefits if it were 10% or 50%. I don't imagine right-wing talk radio will mention this (potential)macro-economical benefit. RAZD said his efficiency caused prices to lower for everybody where he lives. He explained why.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 40 of 357 (776047)
01-08-2016 12:04 AM


Google
quote:
The price of North Sea oil has fallen to just above $32 per barrel, 72% lower than the peak of $115 reached in the summer of 2014.
Brent crude oil price drops to new low of $32 a barrel as US output rises | Oil | The Guardian
Not good for the U.S. energy producers. Russia uses conventional natural gas (the type we can get helium from) which is much cheaper to produce than U.S. un-conventional. They used to say that our unconventionalnatural gas fields couldn't last with market prices under $50 a for barrel of oil.
Especially not good for tar sludge producers (for now anyway)
Slippery Truths: What The Data Says About The Keystone XL Pipeline
There is a floor as to how far down the prices can go in our gas-fired plants.
Solar doesn't really have a floor. Infact, if all investments in new power plants were required by law to be ONLY solar (SOLA SOLIS?), then that would lower solar prices quite a lot simply by adding to the profit margin of solar sellers and enabling the product to be sold a fair ways cheaper (it would also enable the same dynamic to apply all the way down the supply chain of each and every component). Solar costs are upfront too, and the "price parity" issues understates their long-term value.
This doesn't even take into account that technological innovations will offer the most room for future price drops in solar technology verses fossil fuels.
Then the macro economics demand that we look at the solar issue dynamics. Solar actually reduces demand and that enables the price of fossil fuels to look cheaper on paper but the reduced cost is only because solar-use reduces demand (thus prices per barrel).
Solar isn't simply a "green dream". It is a technology that can produce an economic miracle. But we need competent managers of the economy because market forces are myopic and not so-efficient.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 41 of 357 (776049)
01-08-2016 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by RAZD
01-07-2016 8:19 AM


Re: While you go for citations
quote:
RAZD
Personally I think LamarkNewAge is right in the long view, and that in the short view the costs are fairly balanced.
And I've put my money where my mouth is.
You seem to take a "let's sit back and see" approach when you casually say "the costs are fairly balanced". Gee lets just watch the market play itself out for 50 years so solar can slowly grow from 1% up to 5%.
The subsidies are tax credits which lower income people cant even use. It's like the $100 billion per year mortgage interest deduction (except the artificial jacking up of property values is the biggest scam going and the worst disaster ever for our nations productivity).
"Lets pop the corn, kick back and relax. Watch the show, spectators!"
"Watch the great extinction of the ocean species!"
"Enjoy watching the oceans fiz up like a can of fresh cold soda!"
"Enjoy the canned jellyfish, can't say I have any sardines to offer"
At least you could propose that the government gives a $5000 little "sun beam" panel for everybody if they have this wonderful $5000 income tax credit. (sorry I'm thinking of the 1970s "Governor moon beam" issue when Jerry Brown's musings were so far ahead of his time. Now his proposals seem behind the required call of action today).
Anyway what state are you from exactly? What is the time that you would say the panels pay for themselves? Don't factor in interest loans and subsidies. Factor in "net metering" though.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by RAZD, posted 01-07-2016 8:19 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 01-09-2016 10:26 AM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 357 (776065)
01-08-2016 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by LamarkNewAge
01-07-2016 9:30 PM


Re: o.k.
You're talking about costs to folks who have managed successful installations of solar panels.
What I'm more interested in are claims such as: "Maryland has 10,000 square miles. It would only take a few square miles of solar panels (on top of roofs) to fuel the energy needs of the entre state." or that solar "is a technology that can produce an economic miracle."
Those are some pretty hefty claims and they require some pretty hefty evidence.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-07-2016 9:30 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by AZPaul3, posted 01-08-2016 9:56 AM Jon has replied
 Message 44 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-08-2016 10:03 AM Jon has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 43 of 357 (776072)
01-08-2016 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Jon
01-08-2016 8:30 AM


Re: o.k.
... that solar "is a technology that can produce an economic miracle."
Those are some pretty hefty claims and they require some pretty hefty evidence.
I suppose we could try it and see what happens.
We could run an experiment.
Fund more efficient solar technologies, panel every roof and every billboard and see if that impacts our energy budget in any substantial way.
Any guesses what would happen? Other than the political hollering and gnashing of teeth by big oil, of course.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Jon, posted 01-08-2016 8:30 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Jon, posted 01-08-2016 8:15 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 44 of 357 (776073)
01-08-2016 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Jon
01-08-2016 8:30 AM


Consider what we have been told.
quote:
You're talking about costs to folks who have managed successful installations of solar panels.
What I'm more interested in are claims such as: "Maryland has 10,000 square miles. It would only take a few square miles of solar panels (on top of roofs) to fuel the energy needs of the entre state." or that solar "is a technology that can produce an economic miracle."
Those are some pretty hefty claims and they require some pretty hefty evidence.
I meant that if you place every panel into several square miles (with nothing but panels filling in the space), then it produces energy needed. (although that wouldn't be practical in that way because of energy looses through wire distances traveled)
Solar is a technology that always gets cheaper and not in a "predatory" way (like Saudi Arabia increasing production only to crush shale - see my Guardian link above) where the price will jack back up.
Right wing radio keeps on saying "Those environmental leftists just want to control your life. They want all this expensive energy just to enslave you". It is the fossil fuel industry that has a fit when supply & demand doesn't match up with their preferred manipulations.
Look at the price per barrel of oil from 1 year to the next. It's insane. Ands it is 100% manipulation.
Look at it THIS way. Lets say we have 2 options.
1: Pass a law that requires all power plants have to be natural gas.
or
2: Pass a law that requires all power plants have to be solar.
If you do the natural gas option, then the demand will shoot up the price over $100 per barrel or much more than it is today (and more than the nationwide cost of solar-powered plants currently). But the solar option will see prices drop for solar-powered plants from the present. (and it will free up natural gas to be used something OTHER THAN gas-fired power plants which will increase supply and decrease fossil fuel prices)
That doesn't mean solar won't become predatory some day (say 2 decades from now), and we really need to have a total re-think of this big business model for economically vital utilities, but presently the fossil fuels have seen us get screwed, and much of it is just the nature of limited resources. All resources are by definition limited, but solar seems to be much more stable.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Jon, posted 01-08-2016 8:30 AM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 357 (776116)
01-08-2016 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by AZPaul3
01-08-2016 9:56 AM


Re: o.k.
Fund more efficient solar technologies, panel every roof and every billboard and see if that impacts our energy budget in any substantial way.
Any guesses what would happen?
We could end up blowing billions of dollars that could have gone to something more productive.
"Do it and see what happens" is usually not the best approach.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by AZPaul3, posted 01-08-2016 9:56 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-08-2016 9:48 PM Jon has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024