Warming Then And Now?

[Leonhard]

I have no problem letting market forces drive this, even with a little government investment.

I see no problem with there being tons of government investment as long as it is done wisely. For example the National Science Foundation funded a lot of research into solar power, and a lot of government run labs are doing basic research into new battery paradigms. Its basically required to be government based science since the research tends to require time on Big Science labs.

Plus a lot of small pilot projects with power management has to be tested out. The best way to do this is hard to figure out, and in the beginning of any new transition there's a lot of failures. When they had to design rockets for the first time, whether for space or missile use, they went through a lot of failures before they hit on the winning solution.

But as we have seen here in the US Len tax payers have been bilked out of literally billions of dollars for failed solar companies.

That's true, but one of the things Mitt Romney was actually wrong about was that they were all failures. Some of them such as Solar City will probably outcompete oil based power within a few decades, if not in twenty years, at least if developments keep going as they are currently.

So far the price of solar power is dropping by 20% everytime we double installed capacity. Since about 400GW is expected to installed over the next fourty years, and the US currently has roughly 4GW of installations being built, then it'll be substantially cheaper than coal by mid century. Note though that this is a rough back of the envelope estimate of current developments.

The price of oil and coal is going to remain the current price, or go up. They're never going to come down again in any significant way. They're bottlenecked sources of energy, and there's a finite amount of cheap oil to hew out of the ground. That age is simple coming to an end. It was a good way to launch the industrial economies, and its undoubtfully done far more good than bad, however going into the future its not a sustainable source of energy, its going to be the more expensive solution eventually, and finally its putting our environment at risk.

And again, I do not favor hobbling our economy with higher energy prices while other developing countries do not follow suit.

Why not? Changing now will be cheaper and less stressful than changing later. The energy prices are only going to go up, it could be twice as expensive to change in fifty year, and four times as expensive in seventy years.

I'm in the electronics field, and we have a hard enough time trying to compete with Chinese companies as it is. Double or triple our energy costs and we are out of business. That is a fact.

The energy prices would be unlikely to suddenly change discreetely. This energy source will slowly be added to and replace conventional power, growing cheaper as more and more of it is installed. By the time its 40-50% of the power, the only thing you'll notice is that your energy bill is decreasing.

Solar power makes money, its not a money drain. Solar City makes money for itself, try looking into it, they actually have a very good deal for getting solar panels on your roof if you're living in one of the areas they provide for. Basically their entire business model is structured around you leasing solar panels from them, and the amount you pay them is less than what your electricity bill would be, so all you experience is that you pay less money. You pay no upfront money, they take care of upfront costs, installation and maintenance. Its a brilliant business strategy and its working.

They're currently building a large factory that will make 1GW worth of solar panels per year, and within six years they're planning on putting up a 10GW factory.

And besides electric cars are starting to be cool. If I could afford one I'd buy a Tesla Model S.

[seer]

Solar City was founded by a mostly libertarian guy (Elon Musk), and its currently the rising star, so I wouldn't broad paint them all as commies seer. :P

I didn't and I don't. Really, most people could care less where they get their energy as long as it is reasonably priced.

[HMS_Beagle]

I didn't and I don't. Really, most people could care less where they get their energy as long as it is reasonably priced.

That's what your gripes are really about, right? You have no scientific reason to doubt that long term global temperatures are going up and sea level is rising. You just don't want the fixes to personally inconvenience you in any way. Understandable but a long way from being realistic.

[Leonhard]

I didn't and I don't. Really, most people could care less where they get their energy as long as it is reasonably priced.

Alright then I misread you, sorry about that.

Denmark where I live is unfortunately not as well suited for solar power a lot of the US is. We get roughly a third of the sun that a place like Arizona gets owing to high lattitude and lots of grey weather, so the economics is going to be different here than there. Basically its already as cheap as coal in Arizona, but it won't be here until a couple of decades.

[Leonhard]

That's what your gripes are really about, right? You have no scientific reason to doubt that long term global temperatures are going up and sea level is rising. You just don't want the fixes to personally inconvenience you in any way. Understandable but a long way from being realistic.

Actually I don't mind a conservative who acknowledges the possibility of global warming causing trouble, but realising that nothing significant will be done about until solar power is cheap enough. No matter how much good will you threw at it you couldn't have done in it in the seventies, even if you sunk the gross national budget into achieving it. Its only recently that these technologies are becoming not only affordable (meaning we could in principle do it), but attractive (meaning it might make economic sense to it).

In the end free market forces will drive the change, but there's no reason why governments can't support research and early deployment efforts.

[seer]

I see no problem with there being tons of government investment as long as it is done wisely. For example the National Science Foundation funded a lot of research into solar power, and a lot of government run labs are doing basic research into new battery paradigms. Its basically required to be government based science since the research tends to require time on Big Science labs.

Plus a lot of small pilot projects with power management has to be tested out. The best way to do this is hard to figure out, and in the beginning of any new transition there's a lot of failures. When they had to design rockets for the first time, whether for space or missile use, they went through a lot of failures before they hit on the winning solution.



That's true, but one of the things Mitt Romney was actually wrong about was that they were all failures. Some of them such as Solar City will probably outcompete oil based power within a few decades, if not in twenty years, at least if developments keep going as they are currently.

So far the price of solar power is dropping by 20% everytime we double installed capacity. Since about 400GW is expected to installed over the next fourty years, and the US currently has roughly 4GW of installations being built, then it'll be substantially cheaper than coal by mid century. Note though that this is a rough back of the envelope estimate of current developments.

The price of oil and coal is going to remain the current price, or go up. They're never going to come down again in any significant way. They're bottlenecked sources of energy, and there's a finite amount of cheap oil to hew out of the ground. That age is simple coming to an end. It was a good way to launch the industrial economies, and its undoubtfully done far more good than bad, however going into the future its not a sustainable source of energy, its going to be the more expensive solution eventually, and finally its putting our environment at risk.

I don't have a problem with much of this.

Why not? Changing now will be cheaper and less stressful than changing later. The energy prices are only going to go up, it could be twice as expensive to change in fifty year, and four times as expensive in seventy years.

The energy prices would be unlikely to suddenly change discreetely. This energy source will slowly be added to and replace conventional power, growing cheaper as more and more of it is installed. By the time its 40-50% of the power, the only thing you'll notice is that your energy bill is decreasing.

I do have a real problem with this. Coal, Oil and Natural Gas are the cheapest forms of energy today. That is not going to change any time soon, Solar and Wind right now are much higher, never mind that we don't actually have either in my area. If you could get energy to my door, or to the door of the company I work for, at competitive prices no one would complain. But that is not happening yet, here, and until it does we need to use the cheapest energy available to stay in business.

The energy prices would be unlikely to suddenly change discreetely. This energy source will slowly be added to and replace conventional power, growing cheaper as more and more of it is installed. By the time its 40-50% of the power, the only thing you'll notice is that your energy bill is decreasing.

That is not necessarily true. My electric bill has doubled in the last year, we are trying to find out why, but the government is involved - we suspect that it has to do with carbon credits, or lack of them.

And besides electric cars are starting to be cool. If I could afford one I'd buy a Tesla Model S.

You need to set your sights a little lower Homer - maybe an nice Nissan Leaf?

[seer]

Alright then I misread you, sorry about that.

Denmark where I live is unfortunately not as well suited for solar power a lot of the US is. We get roughly a third of the sun that a place like Arizona gets owing to high lattitude and lots of grey weather, so the economics is going to be different here than there. Basically its already as cheap as coal in Arizona, but it won't be here until a couple of decades.

Yes, and solar is a problem up here in New England. But we got tons of natural gas in the tri-state area. Since they started fraking my heating bills have almost been halved.

[JonF]

And? What about the billions lost on failed solar companies? Like I said I have no problem with some government investment, but we need to be a lot wiser and more careful with the companies we choose to invest in. Not just because they happen to be Democrat donors.

Prove your claim of billions. And please post the total ROI, positive or negative, for all government support of solar energy companies.

[seer]

Prove your claim of billions. And please post the total ROI, positive or negative, for all government support of solar energy companies.

I'm not going to total anything, Solyndra alone cost 500 million. I don't care if it is just multi-millions, it is still wrong. But here is one list I found:

Below is a list of energy companies backed by President Barack Obama and funded by the American people that have failed.

Solar Trust of America: FAIL - Filed Bankruptcy in Oakland, CA, April 3, 2012 – On April 2, 2012

Bright Source: FAIL - Bright Source warned Obama’s Energy Department officials in March 2011 that delays in approving a $1.6 billion U.S. loan guarantee would embarrass the White House and force the solar-energy company to close. Lost Billions of dollars but Getting More Money To Keep Trying. Can you say, “This isnt working?”

Solyndra: FAIL - Obama gave Solyndra $500,000,000 in taxpayer money and Solyndra shut its doors and laid off 1100 workers in August 2011 After Billions in Losses due to failure to make a solar product that works!

LSP Energy: FAIL - LSPEnergy LP filed bankruptcy protection and a sale of its assets in Feb 2012

Energy Conversion Devices: FAIL – On February 14, 2012 Energy Conversion Devices, Inc. and its subsidiaries filed for bankruptcy



Abound Solar: FAIL - Abound Solar received a $400 million loan guarantee from Barack Obama announced in June, 2012 that it would file for bankruptcy

SunPower: FAIL – SunPower stopped producing solar cells last year at near bankruptcy restructured only with help of, get this, oil giant TOTAL who owns 60% stake. Irony! Still

Beacon Power: FAIL – Beacon Power Corp filed for bankruptcy Oct 2011 just a year after Obama approved $43 million loan Government loan guarantee

Ecotality: FAIL - ECOtality, a San Francisco green-tech company that never earned any money on the verge of bankruptcy after receiving roughly $115 million in two loan guarantees from Obama

A123 Solar: FAIL-A123 received $279 million from taxpayers thanks to President Obama’sDepartment of Energy loan guarantees and after Solyndra bankruptcy is getting another $500M from Obama and it has lost $400M

UniSolar: FAIL - Uni-Solar filed for Ch 11 bankruptcy in June 20 this year laid off hundreds got more Obama money still failing but still in business

Azure Dynamics: FAIL - Azure Dynamics files for bankruptcy in June ter millions in Obama “Stimulus”

Evergreen Solar: FAIL - Evergreen Solar received $527 Million in Taxpayer money from Obama filed bankruptcy

Ener1: FAIL received more than $100 million in government funding from the Obama administration filed for bankruptcy January 2012

http://www.sodahead.com/united-state...stion-2818877/


http://www.dividedstates.com/list-of...lar-companies/

[Wally]

http://www.sodahead.com/united-state...stion-2818877/


http://www.dividedstates.com/list-of...lar-companies/

No wonder you have such a warped view of reality.

[TheLurch]

I do have a real problem with this. Coal, Oil and Natural Gas are the cheapest forms of energy today. That is not going to change any time soon, Solar and Wind right now are much higher, never mind that we don't actually have either in my area.

That's not true, with the exception of natural gas being extremely cheap. Well sited onshore wind in the US is already cheaper than coal. Electrical cars cost less per mile than petroleum-powered ones. And, as someone else noted above, the price for solar and wind continue to drop, something that's not true for fossil fuels.

The US Energy Information Agency tracks these price drops, and issues cost estimates for five years out. Their most recent one is here:
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/ele...generation.cfm

Scroll down to the table, and look at the column for "Total system LCOE". You'll see that in five years, all forms of wind, regardless of siting, will be cheaper than coal. Photovoltaics will be competitive with advanced coal.

(Incidentally, hydro and geothermal power are both already cheaper than coal, as well.)

It would behoove you to obtain information from reliable sources before making statements like that.

[seer]

That's not true, with the exception of natural gas being extremely cheap. Well sited onshore wind in the US is already cheaper than coal. Electrical cars cost less per mile than petroleum-powered ones. And, as someone else noted above, the price for solar and wind continue to drop, something that's not true for fossil fuels.

The US Energy Information Agency tracks these price drops, and issues cost estimates for five years out. Their most recent one is here:
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/ele...generation.cfm

Scroll down to the table, and look at the column for "Total system LCOE". You'll see that in five years, all forms of wind, regardless of siting, will be cheaper than coal. Photovoltaics will be competitive with advanced coal.

(Incidentally, hydro and geothermal power are both already cheaper than coal, as well.)

It would behoove you to obtain information from reliable sources before making statements like that.

Well first I would think that the increasing regulation on coal plants and mining is what makes it more expensive now. And solar and wind certainly will become cheaper in the future. But they are not available in most areas - like mine. Like I said, no one really cares where they get their energy from as long as we don't double or triple the price. And the fact that coal and oil are transportable.

[seer]

No wonder you have such a warped view of reality.

Really, can you site any false information in either link?

[Leonhard]

I do have a real problem with this. Coal, Oil and Natural Gas are the cheapest forms of energy today.

In five years its going to look even worse for coal and oil, and solar power will be cheaper in even more places. I would genuinely not be surprised if a solar boom could cause 40% of conventional power to be replaced with cheaper solar panels.

never mind that we don't actually have either in my area.

Actually if you live in New England you should definitely check what Solar City can offer you. I would if I were you, seeing as its no cost to you what so ever.

If you could get energy to my door, or to the door of the company I work for, at competitive prices no one would complain. But that is not happening yet, here, and until it does we need to use the cheapest energy available to stay in business.

Can you name a single power company that produces a coal/oil/gas based energy source that they'll install in my home, for no cost, except that they get the majority of the share of the profit it generates? With a deal where the only thing I notice is that my energy bill has decreased?

That is not necessarily true. My electric bill has doubled in the last year, we are trying to find out why, but the government is involved - we suspect that it has to do with carbon credits, or lack of them.

I doubt this has anything to do with solar power, and I'm not sure I support carbon taxes.

You need to set your sights a little lower Homer - maybe an nice Nissan Leaf?

Ahahahahaha... you're joking right?

[Leonhard]

Well first I would think that the increasing regulation on coal plants and mining is what makes it more expensive now.

A lot of that regulation is nescessary as coal power is ultra polluting. It doesn't leave ashes behind you can fertilise crops with. It leaves a horrible toxic (and mildly radioactive) sludge that has to be stored till the end of time. And there has been horrifying spills of that stuff into rivers in the past.

And solar and wind certainly will become cheaper in the future. But they are not available in most areas - like mine.

Are you sure? http://www.solarcity.com/residential/free-solar-quote

Like I said, no one really cares where they get their energy from as long as we don't double or triple the price. And the fact that coal and oil are transportable.

I agree, but depending on where you live its not a matter of double or triple the price and even if it is, its worth getting into the game and developing these power systems now. The cost goes down based on the size of installed capacity. Its like a weird energy version of Moore's law. Basically the bigger the industry, the more experience, the more competition the cheaper it gets. However we won't get there until we've gotten that stuff.

Its only going to be more expensive doing the transition in the future. There's not reason to wait until 2050, realising we only have thirty years left of relatively cheap oil and gas, and then going ahead on the transition in a mad bull rush.