Are Green Jobs an Economic Black Hole?

[twa]

I think it is important in terms of understanding their current over all efficiency.  One has a very well established companies and infrastructure that we've spent huge sums of money subsidizing.

 

The other doesn't.  Is it really surprising that one is more efficient than the other?

 

Infrastructure in terms of the companies and physical infrastructure is a big deal.

 

On another note, the TranCanada has asked the State Dept. to put their decision with respect to the Keystone Pipeline on hold as they deal with NB over the route.

 

 

 

 

 Comparative overall efficiency  can be measured by replacement costs  of different generation sources, existing companies do not really matter since they are not limited to one generating system.

 

I think you overstate  except in the matter of distance required for some systems(remote location)....but that is a flaw with that system, (just as required backup generation to meet base load capacity)

 

 

The pipeline is no longer as profitable  a proposition for Transcanada, hardly a surprise , especially with the US oil export movement going on  ....at least till oil prices rise.

The Obama obstruction costs lots of northern folk money,jobs and investment dollars.

[tshile]

NY Times - Supreme Court Deals Blow to Obama’s Efforts to Regulate Coal Emissions
 

WASHINGTON — In a major setback for President Obama’s climate change agenda, the Supreme Court on Tuesday temporarily blocked the administration’s effort to combat global warming by regulating emissions from coal-fired power plants.

 

The brief order was not the last word on the case, which is most likely to return to the Supreme Court after an appeals court considers an expedited challenge from 29 states and dozens of corporations and industry groups.

 

But the Supreme Court’s willingness to issue a stay while the case proceeds was an early hint that the program could face a skeptical reception from the justices.

 

The 5-to-4 vote, with the court’s four liberal members dissenting, was unprecedented — the Supreme Court had never before granted a request to halt a regulation before review by a federal appeals court.

...

 

It's not over, so the headline is kind of misleading, but apparently this the first time SCOTUS has done such a thing...

[twa]

The federal govt (Obama EPA) is usually not so blatant in not following the rules and ignoring the states role in input.

 

it is a big deal

[Predicto]

NY Times - Supreme Court Deals Blow to Obama’s Efforts to Regulate Coal Emissions

 

 

 

It's not over, so the headline is kind of misleading, but apparently this the first time SCOTUS has done such a thing...

 

 

Remember that the next time someone tries to tell you that we don't have a conservative activist Supreme Court right now.   

[tshile]

Remember that the next time someone tries to tell you that we don't have a conservative activist Supreme Court right now.   

Is ordering a stay so a lower court can finish its process really that activist?

 

I get that the article says 'its never been done' but i'm far from understanding who the people commenting on it are, or the history of the court.

 

Like I said in the other post - it seems like the whole headline is misleading. They dealt a blow? By... requiring them to wait for the lower court to finish their process? Not real decision seems to have been made here?

[twa]

Remember that the next time someone tries to tell you that we don't have a conservative activist Supreme Court right now.   

 

a simple stay to prevent irreversible harm in the interim is the courts job last time I checked 

 

now ya might say it reflects poorly on the DC circuit court yahoos, but that is a different matter.

[twa]

  Who could foresee this?   Obama-Backed Solar Plant Could Be Shut Down For Not Producing Enough Energy

 

 

California regulators may force a massive solar thermal power plant in the Mojave Desert to shut down 

 

 

 

The Ivanpah solar plant could be shut down if state regulators don’t give it more time to meet electricity production promises it made as part of its power purchase agreements with utilities, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Ivanpah, which got a $1.6 billion loan guarantee from the Obama administration, only produced a fraction of the power state regulators expected it would. The plant only generated 45 percent of expected power in 2014 and only 68 percent in 2015, according to government data.

And it does all this at a cost of $200 per megawatt hour — nearly six times the cost of electricity from natural gas-fired power plants. Interestingly enough, Ivanpah uses natural gas to supplement its solar production.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/17/obama-backed-solar-plant-could-be-shut-down-for-not-producing-enough-energy/#ixzz43GWDnMh9

 

[twa]

Renewables are incapable of replacing hydrocarbons at scale

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/274645-renewables-are-incapable-of-replacing-hydrocarbons-at

 

Conspicuously missing from public chatter about the climate issue is recognition of the staggering costs and likely insurmountable engineering challenges of these grand plans to decarbonize human society within several decades.

 

Policymakers intent on imposing a swift end to the era of fossil fuels, such as President Obama andGina McCarthy, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), are either unaware or indifferent to the colossal scale, futility and economic risks of a forced transition from energy-dense fossil fuels to the relatively diluted renewable energy sources (wind, solar and biomass).

The U.N. pact sealed in Paris, as well as the climate goals of the EU, California and the White House, assume that carbon dioxide emissions — a ubiquitous byproduct of human activity — can be reduced 95 percent by 2050.

For a dose of reality, consider master energy number-cruncher Vaclav Smil's estimate of a cost approaching $2.5 trillion to build enough new wind and solar facilities in the United States to replace the 1,100 gigawatt (GW) generating capacity of our fossil-fueled electric system. And couple that colossal sum with another $2 trillion in capital assets now imbedded in fossil-fueled generating hardware and related infrastructure. With a national debt of $19 trillion that is increasing $2 trillion a year, an anemic economy and a shrinking middle class, how can taxpayers afford to subsidize such wasteful projects?

The viability of plans to power our energy-intensive society exclusively with renewables is defied by simple arithmetic and basic physical laws. Yet, policies to avoid dangerous global warming all assume that a mass deployment of renewable energies can replace fossil fuels and still provide abundant, affordable and diverse energy services on which modern societies are utterly dependent. The climate scientists and policy wonks who developed these energy plans remain oblivious to what is increasingly obvious to the engineers who make such things work. As the engineers tasked by Google to develop a realistic, affordable plan to decarbonize concluded: Renewables are a false hope that simply won't work.

 

 

And on the not working note 

 

The Lights Go Out on Another of Obama’s Green Energy Companies

When his second term comes to its inevitable conclusion, the final list of President Obama’s policy failures will be ponderous.

And few items on this list will place higher than his “Green Energy Initiatives.”

One of his gandest schemes involved backing Solyndra LLC, a solar-panel maker. Presidential aides pressured White House budget officials to complete a review of a $535 million U.S. loan guarantee to the firm, which subsequently filed for bankruptcy protection.

Now comes news of a failure 5-times larger. Late last year, another Obama-based green energy company was poised for bankruptcy:

 

http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/04/the-lights-go-out-on-another-of-obamas-green-energy-companies/

[SkinsHokieFan]

Renewables are incapable of replacing hydrocarbons at scale

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/274645-renewables-are-incapable-of-replacing-hydrocarbons-at

 

Conspicuously missing from public chatter about the climate issue is recognition of the staggering costs and likely insurmountable engineering challenges of these grand plans to decarbonize human society within several decades.

 

Policymakers intent on imposing a swift end to the era of fossil fuels, such as President Obama andGina McCarthy, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), are either unaware or indifferent to the colossal scale, futility and economic risks of a forced transition from energy-dense fossil fuels to the relatively diluted renewable energy sources (wind, solar and biomass).

The U.N. pact sealed in Paris, as well as the climate goals of the EU, California and the White House, assume that carbon dioxide emissions — a ubiquitous byproduct of human activity — can be reduced 95 percent by 2050.

For a dose of reality, consider master energy number-cruncher Vaclav Smil's estimate of a cost approaching $2.5 trillion to build enough new wind and solar facilities in the United States to replace the 1,100 gigawatt (GW) generating capacity of our fossil-fueled electric system. And couple that colossal sum with another $2 trillion in capital assets now imbedded in fossil-fueled generating hardware and related infrastructure. With a national debt of $19 trillion that is increasing $2 trillion a year, an anemic economy and a shrinking middle class, how can taxpayers afford to subsidize such wasteful projects?

The viability of plans to power our energy-intensive society exclusively with renewables is defied by simple arithmetic and basic physical laws. Yet, policies to avoid dangerous global warming all assume that a mass deployment of renewable energies can replace fossil fuels and still provide abundant, affordable and diverse energy services on which modern societies are utterly dependent. The climate scientists and policy wonks who developed these energy plans remain oblivious to what is increasingly obvious to the engineers who make such things work. As the engineers tasked by Google to develop a realistic, affordable plan to decarbonize concluded: Renewables are a false hope that simply won't work.

 

 

Dude, you need better sources. This chick is paid by the Koch brothers.

 

It was as if you found an article written by a Phillip Morris think tank on the benefits of smoking :ols: 

 

The Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) is a conservative think tank based in Austin, Texas... a 2010 list of funders surfaced that revealed significant contributions from Koch Industries, Koch family Foundations, the Tobacco Industry, ExxonMobil, and many others."

 

[twa]

so you doubt the Google engineers as well?

 

any competent engineer and economist will tell you the same.

 

perhaps ya should worry less about sources and concentrate on reality 

[twa]

SunEdison Creditors May Be Left Holding a Very Heavy Bag

 

http://realmoney.thestreet.com/articles/04/05/2016/sunedison-creditors-may-be-left-holding-very-heavy-bag

 

When Greenlight Capital's David Einhorn announced a long position in SunEdison(SUNE) in 2014, the hedge fund manager said the company had a "complicated financial situation but simple story." As the renewable energy company continues to falter, the reverse is true: SunEdison's financial situation is simple but its story is complicated.

Put simply, SunEdison took on too much debt too quickly. At the end of 2014, SunEdison had $6.9 billion in debt. Nine months later, at the end of the third quarter, SunEdison's debt rose 68% to $11.6 billion.

The story of SunEdison's debt, however, is decidedly more complicated, which could make matters difficult should the renewable energy company ultimately file for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, as has been widely reported.

Representatives from SunEdison confirmed third quarter debt figures but declined to comment further.

[PeterMP]

so you doubt the Google engineers as well?

 

any competent engineer and economist will tell you the same.

 

perhaps ya should worry less about sources and concentrate on reality 

 

Though I don't think the basis of the article is true though,  I don't think anybody is trying to get to a non-C economy, or cut C emissions by 95% in 2050.

 

The US has proposed to cut emissions by 26-28% by 2025.

 

http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/INDC/Published%20Documents/United%20States%20of%20America/1/U.S.%20Cover%20Note%20INDC%20and%20Accompanying%20Information.pdf

 

I'd be curious to see a like for 95% by 2050.

[twa]

 

 

I'd be curious to see a like for 95% by 2050.

 

95% of 1990 levels seems the goal

[twa]

Reality intrudes

 

Denmark has been heading the vanguard in the battle for wind power, but now admits it's become too expensive

http://nordic.businessinsider.com/after-all-the-money-poured-into-wind-energy-denmark-admits-its-too-expensive-2016-5/

 

Denmark has led the charge for renewable energy, but now the green policies have become too expensive. 

In 2015, Denmark set a new world record by generating the equivalent of 42.1% of the country's total energy consumption by wind. Denmark is also the world's largest exporter of wind power equipment. So it’s fair to say that Denmark is perhaps the world’s leading wind power nation. 

In 2012 a 95% majority in the Danish parliament arrived at a political agreement for 50% of energy consumption to be from wind power by 2020, and 84% by 2035.

The Danish government has now completely changed its mind.

.

.

Danes pay some of the most expensive electric bills in the world.

The Danish consumers and companies pay the highest prices for electricity within the European Union, EU, according to an analysis from the European Electricity Association, Eurelectric.

The analysis showed that in 2014 a staggering 66 percent of the average Danish electricity bill went to taxes and fees, 18 percent to transportation and only 15 percent of the price was for the electricity in itself. Only Germany came close with 52 percent in electricity taxes.

Without all these extra costs Danes would pay below the European average for their energy.

"We can't accept this, as the private sector and households are paying far too much. Denmark's renewable policy has turned out to be too expensive," the climate minister said.

 

 

kinda funny Texas is near Denmark's record ...of course we threw billions into it

 

speaking of funny....did ya hear Ivanpah set itself on fire?

[twa]

Climate accord 'irrelevant,' and CO2 cuts could impoverish the world: Scientist

 

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/04/climate-accord-irrelevant-and-co2-cuts-could-impoverish-the-world-scientist.html

 

In peer-reviewed research, Kelly argued carbon dioxide should be considered the byproduct of the "immense benefits" of a technologically advanced society. Cutting carbon, he added, could result in a dramatic reduction in the world's quality of life that would usher in mass starvation, poverty and civil strife. Massive decarbonization is "only possible if we wish to see large parts of the population die from starvation, destitution or violence in the absence of enough low-carbon energy to sustain society." 

COP21 "will be an irrelevance within a few years," Kelly said to CNBC via email, "as the the bills pile up, and ... the promises are reneged upon."

[PeterMP]

Climate accord 'irrelevant,' and CO2 cuts could impoverish the world: Scientist

 

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/04/climate-accord-irrelevant-and-co2-cuts-could-impoverish-the-world-scientist.html

 

In peer-reviewed research, Kelly argued carbon dioxide should be considered the byproduct of the "immense benefits" of a technologically advanced society. Cutting carbon, he added, could result in a dramatic reduction in the world's quality of life that would usher in mass starvation, poverty and civil strife. Massive decarbonization is "only possible if we wish to see large parts of the population die from starvation, destitution or violence in the absence of enough low-carbon energy to sustain society." 

COP21 "will be an irrelevance within a few years," Kelly said to CNBC via email, "as the the bills pile up, and ... the promises are reneged upon."

 

 

"CFC ban will kill millions' by starvation"

 

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1991/eirv18n16-19910426/eirv18n16-19910426_020-cfc_ban_will_kill_millions_by_st.pdf

[Hersh]

Climate accord 'irrelevant,' and CO2 cuts could impoverish the world: Scientist

 

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/04/climate-accord-irrelevant-and-co2-cuts-could-impoverish-the-world-scientist.html

 

In peer-reviewed research, Kelly argued carbon dioxide should be considered the byproduct of the "immense benefits" of a technologically advanced society. Cutting carbon, he added, could result in a dramatic reduction in the world's quality of life that would usher in mass starvation, poverty and civil strife. Massive decarbonization is "only possible if we wish to see large parts of the population die from starvation, destitution or violence in the absence of enough low-carbon energy to sustain society." 

COP21 "will be an irrelevance within a few years," Kelly said to CNBC via email, "as the the bills pile up, and ... the promises are reneged upon."

 

 

Not sound logic since no one is suggesting we eliminate using energy. I see the tinfoil crowd loved the article in the comment section.

[PeterMP]

Not sound logic since no one is suggesting we eliminate using energy. I see the tinfoil crowd loved the article in the comment section.

 

The piece also talks about removing excessive CO2 from the atmosphere.  Nobody is really talking about doing that.  What people are talking about is lowering our CO2 output.

 

Nobody is really talking about going negative to the point that CO2 levels decrease.

[twa]

Not sound logic 

 

science denier! 

[twa]

The piece also talks about removing excessive CO2 from the atmosphere.  Nobody is really talking about doing that.  What people are talking about is lowering our CO2 output.

 

Nobody is really talking about going negative to the point that CO2 levels decrease.

 

I know some talking about removing it for fuel

 

http://carbonengineering.com/air-capture/

[Hersh]

For both of you in this thread. On the show Vice (HBO) a couple months ago they talked about the future of energy. One that was particularly cool was this "kid's" idea on how to build these mini reactors that are about 3 meters in diameter and underground to create energy out of spent nuclear fuel that is just sitting idle.

 

If you don't have HBO, someone posted it on youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibslqXQM45U

The part I'm talking about is around the 14:45 minute mark, though they talk to the kid early in the episode. The kid literally makes yellow cake. Unfortunately, not the delicious edible kind.

 

These are the types of ideas (along with solar friggin roadways) that the US should invest it to find out the feasibility.

[twa]

problem with mini spent fuel reactors is the govt doesn't like radioactive material in public hands

 

add

they are looking at solar roadways, not practical yet

same with solar paint/film

[PeterMP]

For both of you in this thread. On the show Vice (HBO) a couple months ago they talked about the future of energy. One that was particularly cool was this "kid's" idea on how to build these mini reactors that are about 3 meters in diameter and underground to create energy out of spent nuclear fuel that is just sitting idle.

 

If you don't have HBO, someone posted it on youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibslqXQM45U

The part I'm talking about is around the 14:45 minute mark, though they talk to the kid early in the episode. The kid literally makes yellow cake. Unfortunately, not the delicious edible kind.

 

These are the types of ideas (along with solar friggin roadways) that the US should invest it to find out the feasibility.

 

Spent nuclear fuel in most cases is still radioactive in most case, which is why it is an issue.  I'm not at all sure that having that many sources of radioactivity around is a good idea.

 

Part of the problem is that too many people are looking for slam dunk solutions.  Actually turning off electronic devices that aren't actually being used would go along way.

 

Then you add onto it things like green roofs:

 

https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/GreenRoofsReport.pdf

 

And you start to get the point where we can significantly reduce usage, which means at an economic level, people could pay more.

 

(If 10% of my budget is going to paying for energy, then if I cut my energy usage by 10% , I can still pay 10% of my budget to energy, which means I can buy more expensive energy.)

 

And that does not even get into cars:

http://www.autonews.com/article/20151216/OEM11/151219906/cheap-gas-spurs-suv-sales-and-puts-u.s.-climate-goals-at-risk

[Hersh]

I'm not looking for a slam dunk solution, just saying that there should be a push by the US in the same way there was a push to put a man on the moon. A collective effort. Plus, I do just about all the things you mentioned already.

[China]

2016 was the year solar panels finally became cheaper than fossil fuels. Just wait for 2017

 

The renewable energy future will arrive when installing new solar panels is cheaper than a comparable investment in coal, natural gas or other options. If you ask the World Economic Forum (WEF), the day has arrived.

Solar and wind is now the same price or cheaper than new fossil fuel capacity in more than 30 countries, the WEF reported in December (pdf). As prices for solar and wind power continue their precipitous fall, two-thirds of all nations will reach the point known as “grid parity” within a few years, even without subsidies. “Renewable energy has reached a tipping point,” Michael Drexler, who leads infrastructure and development investing at the WEF, said in a statement. “It is not only a commercially viable option, but an outright compelling investment opportunity with long-term, stable, inflation-protected returns.”

 

Click on the link for the full article