Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8795 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-19-2017 12:12 PM
348 online now:
1.61803, DC85, DrJones*, GDR, jar, kjsimons, NoNukes, ooh-child, PaulK, Percy (Admin), ringo, Stile, Tangle (13 members, 335 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile, Flyer75
Post Volume:
Total: 820,852 Year: 25,458/21,208 Month: 1,085/2,338 Week: 206/450 Day: 26/52 Hour: 1/7

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
24NextFF
Author Topic:   2014 was hotter than 1998. 2015 data in yet?
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 906
Joined: 12-22-2015


(1)
Message 1 of 357 (775543)
01-02-2016 2:54 PM


It is January 2, 2016.

I seem to remember that the 2014 data came in by the time of the State of the Union Speech. But the argument that there was "no warming in 16 years" that we heard for all of 2014 shopped finally.

Side issue:

Now if only we could get the environmental movement to point out that solar panels REDUCE the price of fossil fuels by reducing demand. The environmental movement is so obsessed with increasing the price of non-renewables that they can't seem to dig themselves out of the cul-de-sac they dug themselves into. It has hurt the cause badly. I would bet that a government funded $200 billion per year program (over say 10 years which would be $2 trillion)- which puts solar panels on every roof (for "free"), would pay for itself in short time. How could at-the-pump gas prices not drop when that would eliminate the need to build gas-fired power plants (or any power plants) and thus increase the supply (against the demand)?

A resident in North Carolina just paid $7500 to rent solar panels for 20 years, and the energy cost's dropped from $1,800 down to $800 per year ("net metering" was responsible for much of that $1000 yearly savings however).

It seems that costs drop right away and pay for themselves in 8 years (when renting)?

However, Al Gore, said that utility companies don't like solar panels because it cuts into their profits (they want more projects to build new plants), so they actually raise prices on existing consumers to make up for the loss in profit. He said it reflected something like the "public interest against the special interest".

Here is the problem.Consumers refuse to spend a few more $ upfront on LEDs (over incandescent bulbs) even though the savings will come in months if not weeks. (8 hours per day use of LEDs saves around $100 a year verses incandescent bulbs). They will never pay for solar panels (with all the trouble and upfront costs). The government must take the initiative and it's the fault of the environmental movement for not making a big government investment the chief issue. And the environmental movement seems all about punishing poor Americans with endless measures to jack up existing prices of energy (though utility companies might be responsible for some of this, re: Al Gore Rolling Stone interview) and then subsidizing richer Americans in purchasing panels.

I blame the environmental movement for the problems in implementing a green future. We know there are special interests for the fossil fuel industry (duh!), but the environmental movement has played right into their hands.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Percy, posted 01-02-2016 3:36 PM LamarkNewAge has responded
 Message 6 by RAZD, posted 01-02-2016 5:50 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded
 Message 109 by Pressie, posted 01-19-2016 7:56 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12533
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 2 of 357 (775548)
01-02-2016 3:19 PM


Thread Moved from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16026
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 3 of 357 (775549)
01-02-2016 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by LamarkNewAge
01-02-2016 2:54 PM


LamarNewAge writes:

Here is the problem.Consumers refuse to spend a few more $ upfront on LEDs (over incandescent bulbs) even though the savings will come in months if not weeks. (8 hours per day use of LEDs saves around $100 a year verses incandescent bulbs).

I think your figures may be a bit off. A hundred watt incandescent bulb running for eight hours a day for a year at $0.20 per kilowatt hour would cost $58.40. You couldn't save $100 in a few weeks, not even in a year. The most you could save is $58.40 if you managed to find an LED bulb that used 0 watts.

The national average for electricity costs is around $0.11 per kilowatt hour, barely more than half the figure in my example and reducing the savings even more.

Maybe what you meant to say is that you would save the cost of the LED bulb in as little as a few months (in states with low electricity costs it could take nearly a year, depending upon the cost of the bulb).

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-02-2016 2:54 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-02-2016 3:46 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 906
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 4 of 357 (775550)
01-02-2016 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Percy
01-02-2016 3:36 PM


O.K. $50 per year savings then.
But the important things are that:

all the upfront costs will be covered in less than a year

the upfront costs are small

the "installation" is as simple as breathing

the savings will be in the hundreds of $$$ over several years
..........

Yet, people still don't buy them because of the slightly higher upfront costs. It should give an idea of what we are dealing with when one looks at the solar panel issue (and panels have not even reached the 20 year "price parity" yet, at least not nationally).

Also

The environmental movement has failed miserably in explaining all the macro-economic benefits.

EDIT: one macro-economic benefit could be that a $200 billion per year investment in solar panels (for free) on rooftops could send gas prices (at the pump) down by about that much. The speculators would give up on hoarding gas and parking it offshore when they know there will be abundant energy (and renewable)available every year in the future. No more 30 cents per gallon added cost simply due to speculation. That is in addition to the savings from reduced demand for the fossil fuels (just a slight increase in demand can shoot prices up over a $1 per gallon which would be a savings of perhaps $125 billion per year for American consumers).

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Percy, posted 01-02-2016 3:36 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 01-02-2016 5:40 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19084
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 5 of 357 (775566)
01-02-2016 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by LamarkNewAge
01-02-2016 3:46 PM


return on investment
See Solar (alternative energy) economics, Message 253 of Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!

Return on investment between 7% and 10% -- sufficient to make it economical to borrow (at lower interest) to install panels and still be ahead in the near future, way ahead beyond that.

All my bulbs are LED and before panel installation I was one of the "more efficient houses" in my neighborhood based on total energy use (gas and electric). My electric bill has been negative since the panel installation.

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 4 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-02-2016 3:46 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-02-2016 5:58 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19084
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 6 of 357 (775567)
01-02-2016 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by LamarkNewAge
01-02-2016 2:54 PM


It is January 2, 2016.

I seem to remember that the 2014 data came in by the time of the State of the Union Speech. But the argument that there was "no warming in 16 years" that we heard for all of 2014 shopped finally.

See We have seen the enemy, and it IS us., Message 245 of Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!:

http://www.bloomberg.com/...ics/2015-whats-warming-the-world

Go to the site as it is interactive.

Go through each of the graphics to see. Sorry, I was not able to capture the images, as they are active.

The ones of greater interest are on:

page 5 - all natural factors combined

page 10 - all human factors combined.

And from Message 242 of that thread we have

and I have not seen any evidence that this trend did not continue if not get worse.

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 1 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-02-2016 2:54 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 906
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 7 of 357 (775568)
01-02-2016 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by RAZD
01-02-2016 5:40 PM


Nice "micro" return on investment
And, that means that the energy you are no longer sucking from the grid is available for others (so reduced demand).

It should, in theory, reduce prices for others. But Al Gore said in the Rolling Stone interview that your panels actually increase prices on the grid because the utility companies will want to make up for the lost profits.

So, not only will (most)people not pay the upfront costs (that you did), but the utility companies make the issue all the more complicated.

The standard thinking among environmentalists is that the "utility death spiral" (as Gore called it) of higher rates for consumers on the grid combined with cheaper solar panel prices will lean to a greener future (albeit much further down the road as it is a long, winding, slow path ahead).

The thinking assumes that there won't be a political backlash during the long, slow transition. I think the higher energy prices could cause a wave election (eventually) which will sweep in those who want to remove all regulations on power plants (to reduce prices somewhat). A wave could come if gas prices at the pump increase and that frustration combines with those who feel the crunch paying the utility companies. (remember, it isn't even guaranteed that regulations set to kick in next decade banning inefficient light-bulbs wont be trashed with a new administration - despite all the forward progress)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 01-02-2016 5:40 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2016 9:44 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19084
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 8 of 357 (775619)
01-03-2016 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by LamarkNewAge
01-02-2016 5:58 PM


Re: Nice "micro" return on investment
And, that means that the energy you are no longer sucking from the grid is available for others (so reduced demand).

Indeed, I intentionally oversized my installation so that

  • I would generate a surplus, thus helping my neighborhood as well as my own use,
  • provide for me to increase use of electricity over time and
  • allow for long term decay of panel output (5% in 20 years projected)

I can also add to it or supplement it with other solar or wind generation. Wind especially interests me, but I tend towards the vertical axis type best realized with http://artturbine.com/ style pieces of art as well as productive.

For instance I also use a single small panel wired to a deep-cycle battery that powers a 12vdc bilge pump in my sump, making the AC pump a backup (and the water powered pump a backup backup -- I live in a flood zone).

It should, in theory, reduce prices for others. But Al Gore said in the Rolling Stone interview that your panels actually increase prices on the grid because the utility companies will want to make up for the lost profits.

That would be true if the utilities are run as capitalist corporations, which is not always the case. In my case for instance the local utility just announced a reduction in rates because production costs were down (you're welcome, neighbors).

The standard thinking among environmentalists is that the "utility death spiral" (as Gore called it) of higher rates for consumers on the grid combined with cheaper solar panel prices will lean to a greener future (albeit much further down the road as it is a long, winding, slow path ahead).

I believe the higher rates Gore and others are anticipating are due to higher costs to obtain fossil fuels as resources become used up.

Curiously, I don't anticipate the utilities disappearing because the grid will still balance the flow of electricity, but I do expect it to become more of a web of interconnected sources. This will reduce incidence of blackouts\brownouts and provide better overall protection from storm damage.

But then I also expect utilities to become either public owned or non-profit as well.

The thinking assumes that there won't be a political backlash during the long, slow transition. I think the higher energy prices could cause a wave election (eventually) which will sweep in those who want to remove all regulations on power plants (to reduce prices somewhat). A wave could come if gas prices at the pump increase and that frustration combines with those who feel the crunch paying the utility companies. (remember, it isn't even guaranteed that regulations set to kick in next decade banning inefficient light-bulbs wont be trashed with a new administration - despite all the forward progress)

Which is why we need to separate real economics from political (corporatist) economics. Note that the use of coal to generate electricity is down, not because of political regulations, but because it is cheaper and more efficient to use natural gas. Note as well that surveys of actual installations of solar panels is far higher than was expected. Solar farms and wind farms are also ways that corporate utilities are moving to provide electricity without fossil fuels and to reduce their production costs long term.

They have to reduce costs to remain competitive as corporations, and as public utilities or non-profits they would have a mandate to provide service at minimum rates.

Because everyone can do what I have done.

The way things are currently (no pun intended) structured, any electrical company can become your provider and you agree to pay their rates for generation,* much like you can choose any internet provider for (bad) service. This means that a non-profit cooperative company could provide solar panels on your roof, sharing the cost and the power with you, and sharing the grid wire maintenance costs with the other utilities or a sub-utility that specializes in line maintenance.

Enjoy

* - including a "line fee" to the utility company that owns the lines, and as that company see decreased demand for generation of electricity it would evolve into a utility for maintaining the lines.

Edited by RAZD, : ..


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 7 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-02-2016 5:58 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-03-2016 1:51 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 17 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-04-2016 8:24 PM RAZD has responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 906
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 9 of 357 (775630)
01-03-2016 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by RAZD
01-03-2016 9:44 AM


Here is some of Al Gore's interview pasted
http://www.rollingstone.com/...hope-for-the-climate-20140618

quote:

The chief battleground in this war between the energy systems of the past and future is our electrical grid. For more than a century, the grid along with the regulatory and legal framework governing it has been dominated by electric utilities and their centralized, fossil-fuel-powered electricity-generation plants. But the rise of distributed alternate energy sources allows consumers to participate in the production of electricity through a policy called net metering. In 43 states, homeowners who install solar PV to systems on their rooftops are permitted to sell electricity back into the grid when they generate more than they need.

These policies have been crucial to the growth of solar power. But net metering represents an existential threat to the future of electric utilities, the so-called utility death spiral: As more consumers install solar panels on their roofs, utilities will have to raise prices on their remaining customers to recover the lost revenues. Those higher rates will, in turn, drive more consumers to leave the utility system, and so on.

But here is more good news: The Koch brothers are losing rather badly. In Kansas, their home state, a poll by North Star Opinion Research reported that 91 percent of registered voters support solar and wind. Three-quarters supported stronger policy encouragement of renewable energy, even if such policies raised their electricity bills.

In Georgia, the Atlanta Tea Party joined forces with the Sierra Club to form a new organization called wait for it the Green Tea Coalition, which promptly defeated a Koch-funded scheme to tax rooftop solar panels.

Meanwhile, in Arizona, after the state's largest utility, an ALEC member, asked the public-utility commission for a tax of up to $150 per month for solar households, the opposition was fierce and well-organized. A compromise was worked out those households would be charged just $5 per month but Barry Goldwater Jr., the leader of a newly formed organization called TUSK (Tell Utilities Solar won't be Killed), is fighting a new attempt to discourage rooftop solar in Arizona. Characteristically, the Koch brothers and their allies have been using secretive and deceptive funding in Arizona to run television advertisements attacking "greedy" owners of rooftop solar panels but their effort has thus far backfired, as local journalists have exposed the funding scam.

Even though the Koch-funded forces recently scored a partial (and almost certainly temporary) victory in Ohio, where the legislature voted to put a hold on the state's renewable-portfolio standard and study the issue for two years, it's clear that the attack on solar energy is too little, too late. Last year, the Edison Electric Institute warned the utility industry that it had waited too long to respond to the sharp cost declines and growing popularity of solar: "At the point when utility investors become focused on these new risks and start to witness significant customer- and earnings-erosion trends, they will respond to these challenges. But, by then, it may be too late to repair the utility business model."

The most seductive argument deployed by the Koch brothers and their allies is that those who use rooftop solar electricity and benefit from the net-metering policies are "free riders" that is, they are allegedly not paying their share of the maintenance costs for the infrastructure of the old utility model, including the grid itself. This deceptive message, especially when coupled with campaign contributions, has persuaded some legislators to support the proposed new taxes on solar panels.

But the argument ignores two important realities facing the electric utilities: First, most of the excess solar electricity is supplied by owners of solar cells during peak-load hours of the day, when the grid's capacity is most stressed thereby alleviating the pressure to add expensive new coal- or gas-fired generating capacity. But here's the rub: What saves money for their customers cuts into the growth of their profits and depresses their stock prices. As is often the case, the real conflict is between the public interest and the special interest.
MORE


Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/...limate-20140618#ixzz3wD0dzOrR
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/...limate-20140618#ixzz3wD0WtKpV
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/...limate-20140618#ixzz3wD0Q5GJI
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/...limate-20140618#ixzz3wD0J2hTm
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/...limate-20140618#ixzz3wD049MKz
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2016 9:44 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2016 2:45 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19084
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


(2)
Message 10 of 357 (775636)
01-03-2016 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by LamarkNewAge
01-03-2016 1:51 PM


Re: Here is some of Al Gore's interview pasted
So what do you think about that article? Is it accurate? Objective?

These policies have been crucial to the growth of solar power. But net metering represents an existential threat to the future of electric utilities, the so-called utility death spiral: As more consumers install solar panels on their roofs, utilities will have to raise prices on their remaining customers to recover the lost revenues. Those higher rates will, in turn, drive more consumers to leave the utility system, and so on.

Let's review this objectively:

(1) "utilities will have to raise prices on their remaining customers to recover the lost revenues." -- this is typical corporatist propaganda with the logical fallacy of appeal to (unfounded) consequences. The use of logical fallacies should raise big red flags in any argument.

They also will have reduced costs, so all they "lose" is their unearned profit margin on people that put up solar power. Their appropriate response is any combination of (a) investing in solar and wind farms themselves (see Duke Energy Commits To Largest Solar Farm East Of Mississippi, (b) to charge a user fee to transmit power over the lines and through the transformers they have installed and which they would continue to maintain and (c) enter into cooperative agreements providing solar panels and installation to consumers in exchange for giving them an equitable share of the value of the produced electricity (they become share holders in the coop venture).

(2) "Those higher rates will, in turn, drive more consumers to leave the utility system, and so on." -- consumers are already opting to use solar panels in increasing numbers (a) because they want to help lessen greenhouse gases, (b) it is economical (as I have demonstrated) and (c) costs of production are dropping and efficiency is improving (and will continue to) making them more and more affordable even without government subsidies.

Consumers are also worried about the ability of the utility companies to expand production, or even to maintain production, as electrical use increases and population increases, and having an alternate source for backup and to reduce peak demand makes sense.

In Georgia, the Atlanta Tea Party joined forces with the Sierra Club to form a new organization called wait for it the Green Tea Coalition, which promptly defeated a Koch-funded scheme to tax rooftop solar panels.

Not surprising at all. One of the things I saw from participation in the Occupy movement was that there was a lot of cross-over with Tea Party positions and utilities are like government and corporations combined, while people have virtually no say in how they operate: disenfranchised people disenchanted by arbitrary power.

The most seductive argument deployed by the Koch brothers and their allies is that those who use rooftop solar electricity and benefit from the net-metering policies are "free riders" that is, they are allegedly not paying their share of the maintenance costs for the infrastructure of the old utility model, including the grid itself. This deceptive message, especially when coupled with campaign contributions, has persuaded some legislators to support the proposed new taxes on solar panels.

That gets me back to the user fees. I can sign up with a power company in Arizona and pay them for power they generate plus fees to use the grid to distribute it here to Rhode Island.

But the argument ignores two important realities facing the electric utilities: First, most of the excess solar electricity is supplied by owners of solar cells during peak-load hours of the day, when the grid's capacity is most stressed thereby alleviating the pressure to add expensive new coal- or gas-fired generating capacity. But here's the rub: What saves money for their customers cuts into the growth of their profits and depresses their stock prices. As is often the case, the real conflict is between the public interest and the special interest.

Companies are already shifting away from coal because of cost. Companies are also investing in solar and wind farms to reduce production costs.

... But here's the rub: What saves money for their customers cuts into the growth of their profits and depresses their stock prices. ...

Why should I worry about the amount greedy banks\corporations suck out of a necessary system rather than about providing the best overall service at the best price?

In other words: boo hoo, the world is changing and you either keep up with it or you become extinct (and that not fast enough for me, imho).

The argument that rich people won't be able to make as much money out of something they are not really entitled too is a losing argument in my book, and would incline me to install even MORE solar panels.

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 9 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-03-2016 1:51 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-03-2016 4:08 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 13 by herebedragons, posted 01-04-2016 8:08 AM RAZD has responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 906
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 11 of 357 (775645)
01-03-2016 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by RAZD
01-03-2016 2:45 PM


Re: Here is some of Al Gore's interview pasted
quote:

So what do you think about that article? Is it accurate? Objective?

Our media is worthless when it comes to informing Americans of anything consequential, so Al Gore is always educational. He is responding to popular propaganda, so it also provides a much needed balance.

That is 2 points in his favor.

I still think that global warming (um) educationalists need to offer some real solutions instead of cheering on higher energy prices. The opposition will just point to environmental regulations as the cause for the wallet pinch.

I wish we could get around to helping Indians buy solar panels (they don't have expensive electrical wiring and phone poles in most places, so panels are a much cheaper way to get electricity) but we don't even buy them for our citizens.

The idea of the government purchasing panels for Americans is a taboo subject despite the fact that it is economical from a pure energy standpoint(before one even considers the environmental benefits and the economics of such).

The environmental issues should teach us that we are one world, but we don't even have our act together here in our neck of the nationalist woods.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2016 2:45 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2016 5:52 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19084
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 12 of 357 (775652)
01-03-2016 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by LamarkNewAge
01-03-2016 4:08 PM


Re: Here is some of Al Gore's interview pasted
I wish we could get around to helping Indians buy solar panels (they don't have expensive electrical wiring and phone poles in most places, so panels are a much cheaper way to get electricity) but we don't even buy them for our citizens.

But many places are installing solar panels as stand-alone systems without need for transmission lines and poles.

The idea of the government purchasing panels for Americans is a taboo subject despite the fact that it is economical from a pure energy standpoint(before one even considers the environmental benefits and the economics of such).

So they provide subsidies and grants to get them purchased

The environmental issues should teach us that we are one world, but we don't even have our act together here in our neck of the nationalist woods.

There is no planet B.

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 11 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-03-2016 4:08 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1413
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 13 of 357 (775694)
01-04-2016 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by RAZD
01-03-2016 2:45 PM


Re: Here is some of Al Gore's interview pasted
Consumers are also worried about the ability of the utility companies to expand production, or even to maintain production, as electrical use increases and population increases, and having an alternate source for backup and to reduce peak demand makes sense.

Also utilities themselves are concerned about meeting increasing demand. Here in Michigan, a number of coal fired power plants (9 locations, I believe) are slated for decommissioning in the next 10 years, some of them do not have a really good alternative solution yet (such as one that serves the entire western upper peninsula). Utilities are scrambling to find ways to reduce demand and provide alternate sources of energy generation. Michigan is not a good candidate for extensive solar power (although there is some) but we do have potential for wind generators.

Anyway, our major electricity provider has a number of incentive programs right now aimed at reducing demand. We had them come in to our church and do an energy audit and they gave us, free of charge, 80+ LED bulbs to replace our old incandescent bulbs in our sanctuary - about $400 worth of bulbs. They also have incentives for replacing most of our other less efficient lighting sources which we will probably do next year since it will require some cash outlay on our part.

So the economics of it is that rather than investing $500 million to build a new generating plant they are investing that capital in reducing demand. In fact, I would think it is significantly cheaper to reduce demand by 1kW than it is to generate 1kW. Of course that only goes so far and they are investing significant amounts of money in new electricity generators - primarily wind and natural gas (I don't think they have plans to replace any coal fired plant with another coal fired plant - it is too costly).

Companies are already shifting away from coal because of cost. Companies are also investing in solar and wind farms to reduce production costs.

A big part of the cost associated with coal is transportation. For plants that are close to the source, I think it is still an economic choice - Wyoming and West Virginia for example. But in most places, natural gas is much less costly to produce and deliver. The other big cost is the technology needed to clean the smoke from coal. However, since many plants are implementing those scrubbing systems, there must still be economic incentive to do so.

However, I am not sure that the economics would favor alternative energy sources were it not for the pressure put on utilities to reduce emissions from coal fired plants, which is an example of how government does need to step in and set standards, not just wait for the market forces to drive corporate decisions.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2016 2:45 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 01-04-2016 10:19 AM herebedragons has responded
 Message 16 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-04-2016 8:18 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19084
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 14 of 357 (775706)
01-04-2016 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by herebedragons
01-04-2016 8:08 AM


Re: Here is some of Al Gore's interview pasted
... However, since many plants are implementing those scrubbing systems, there must still be economic incentive to do so.

Indeed, the cost/kw is cheaper to scrub the smoke than to scrub the plant and replace it.

We have a plant near us that is slated to go off-line in ~2 years now (originally in 2013), and they just built two giant 500' cooling towers to reduce impact on Narragansett Bay.

Rhode Island is pretty flat and these monsters can be seen for miles (and they have affected property values nearby), but at the time it was more economical to keep producing electricity while they were built.

What do we do with these when the plant shuts down?

(a) paint them like Devil's Tower and have rock climbing on them?

(b) install large vertical axis windmills with them as the axis (constant wind up the bay)?

(c) demolish them and clean the site (likely contaminated)?

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 13 by herebedragons, posted 01-04-2016 8:08 AM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by herebedragons, posted 01-04-2016 2:32 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1413
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 15 of 357 (775734)
01-04-2016 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by RAZD
01-04-2016 10:19 AM


Re: Here is some of Al Gore's interview pasted
Rhode Island is pretty flat ... What do we do with these when the plant shuts down?

Mountain views... even better with an amusement park inside!!!

But seriously, getting rid of the remnants of our 20th century industrial roots is going to be a huge problem going forward. Here in Michigan, the 1000s of automotive suppliers that are no longer in business have left huge quantities of empty buildings and contaminated land behind. And then to make room for more development, we are clearing new land because it is too expensive and risky to reclaim old industrial lands. To me, its as big a problem as reducing future pollutions.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 01-04-2016 10:19 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
1
23456
...
24NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017