Are Green Jobs an Economic Black Hole?

[twa]

I'm showing Sweden is hardly a model for green energy unless you count the vast hydro available and nuke

 

The new EPA CO2 guidelines say something about eliminating coal here w/o massive changes in tech,a source twice Germany's nuclear %(which you seem to think hard to replace).

 

 

I'm certainly open to more nuke and hydro here....good luck getting it past the Greens though.

[PeterMP]

I'm showing Sweden is hardly a model for green energy unless you count the vast hydro available and nuke

 

The new EPA CO2 guidelines say something about eliminating coal here w/o massive changes in tech,a source twice Germany's nuclear %(which you seem to think hard to replace).

 

 

I'm certainly open to more nuke and hydro here....good luck getting it past the Greens though.

 

I think most environmentalists in this country are not really anti-nuclear any more.  The larger issue with nuclear is the NIMBY issue and the huge up front costs.

 

And with run of the river hydroelectric many environmental issues of hydroelectric have been resolved.

 

The other thing is that traditional hydroelectric just didn't have issues with environmentalists, but with game and commercial fisheries.

 

There's a difference between closing down a certain type of plant- even if they are still capable of generating electricity and not building others. (which is what Germany is trying to do with their nuclear plants)

 

And old ones can keep operating as is and new ones can be built if they include new technology (that presumably will get cheaper over time as it is new)- which is what we are doing with coal.

[twa]

Has any major environmental organization came out in favor of nuclear?

 

Run of the river ain't gonna contribute much more than niche.

 

Are you leaving out costs added on coal fired for a reason? (there is more than one way to stop plants,just as there is more than one way to stop drilling)

 

going to be fun hearing the howls as those costs are reflected in light bills

 

add

Experts say CO2 regulation of existing coal plants, which remains an open question>no longer a open question  <under the Obama administration, would effectively end the working lives of hundreds of base-load power units in the United States, including plants like Gallatin and Big Sandy that are too big, too old and too carbon-intensive to be considered for eventual carbon capture retrofits.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=us-coal-fired-power-plants-update-close

[PeterMP]

Has any major environmental organization came out in favor of nuclear?

 

Run of the river ain't gonna contribute much more than niche.

 

Are you leaving out costs added on coal fired for a reason? (there is more than one way to stop plants,just as there is more than one way to stop drilling)

 

going to be fun hearing the howls as those costs are reflected in light bills

 

add

Experts say CO2 regulation of existing coal plants, which remains an open question>no longer a open question  <under the Obama administration, would effectively end the working lives of hundreds of base-load power units in the United States, including plants like Gallatin and Big Sandy that are too big, too old and too carbon-intensive to be considered for eventual carbon capture retrofits.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=us-coal-fired-power-plants-update-close

 

One of us is wrong about what we think we know:

 

http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards/what-epa-doing

 

The EPA is being very flexibile with respect to existing power plants, and there is a good chance you won't see any new regulation on them over what is expected to be their life time.

 

You might see something where if there are large up grades to extend their expected life time that those up grades will have to include CO2 capture technology.

 

I don't think the EPA regulations are going to apply to power plants that are approved and in the under construction phase.

 

I don't know of any environomental groups that have supported nuclear power publically, but they are supporting laws that include incentives to build a nuclear power plants so the net effect is that they are:

 

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-11-24/news/36857794_1_nuclear-power-nuclear-plants-nuclear-operators

[twa]

One of us is wrong about what we think we know:

Yes, but it isn't me   ....of course I have different sources and perspective

 

unless they change direction again rates are gonna rise and more coal plants close(which I really don't mind)

 

they are gonna throw more govt money at clean coal though

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/business/energy-environment/us-revives-aid-program-for-clean-energy.html?ref=politics&_r=0

 

Officials say the federal subsidies are necessary to support the development of technologies that are too complex, unproven and expensive for investors and private companies to pursue on their own, assertions that have already stirred criticism from opponents who see the program as too risky and a misuse of taxpayer money.

[PeterMP]

Is the EPA requiring existing coal plants to add on CO2 capture technology or not?

 

I'm not a big fan of the loan guarntee programs or clean fossil fules, but that's another issue, and what you've link and quote have nothing to do with closing or putting highly excessive burdens on existing coal power plants in the US.

[twa]

Is the EPA requiring existing coal plants to add on CO2 capture technology or not?

 

I

 

it is being negotiated,along with carbon credits ect.

 

you seem to believe existing coal plants will just continue under the old rules.

[PeterMP]

it is being negotiated,along with carbon credits ect.

 

you seem to believe existing coal plants will just continue under the old rules.

I don't expect there will be any new regulations directely related to the old plants with respect to carbon if they remain as is.  I don't expect that they will be required to add in carbon capture technology unless there are going to be other significant updates made.

 

I do suspect that there will be some sort of larger big picture steps, like carbon credits, taken that affects over all energy generation/usage

 

I do not suspect that it will be done in a manner that will make coal based economically unadvantageous over the expected life time of currently operating plants UNLESS carbon capture technology becomes a lot more effecient/cheaper.

 

I do suspect it might push the balance so they are less then they are currently are.

 

I suspect that from your link above where you put in the "no longer an open question" the TVA is going to have made the right decision, though maybe not by as big a margin as they hoped.

 

At BEST, it is still an "open question" and based on what the EPA has said:

 

"Standards for currently operating plants are set through a federal-state partnership that includes federal guidelines and state plans to set and implement performance standards. Reflecting the significant differences between currently operating sources and those not yet built, the standards that will be developed for currently operating sources are expected to be different from, and less stringent than, the standards proposed today for future sources."

 

They appear as if they are going to be flexibile and even have different guidelines based on the state.

[twa]

I don't expect there will be any new regulations directely related to the old plants with respect to carbon if they remain as is.  I don't expect that they will be required to add in carbon capture technology unless there are going to be other significant updates made.

 

as is can mean many things, the plant owners do not share your expectations,nor is that the only regs cutting their throat

 

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/epa-powerplant-closures

 

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2013/09/20/epa-rule-targets-affordable-energy/

“The only impact that today’s announced rule will have is on the pocketbooks of American consumers who will pay skyrocketing electricity costs while the White House follows a failed German model to direct the U.S. economy away from our affordable and abundant coal and natural gas resources to expensive and unreliable renewables. Make no mistake: the Obama EPA is reading verbatim from the Sierra Club’s radical playbook to move the United States beyond coal and natural gas.

“There are a number of problems with today’s announced rule. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is intentionally evading its statutory responsibility to analyze the costs and benefits of the new regulation by claiming that the economics of coal and natural gas mean that energy producers would meet the goals of the regulation with or without the new rule. This is incredibly disingenuous. Why would the administration spend taxpayer money and agency time to write a rule that has no practical impact whatsoever. Once again, the EPA’s transparency is called into question.

 

but let's talk about green jobs

A fuel cell project in Delaware is costing residents more than expected and failing to create the jobs it promised after receiving million of dollars in state subsidies.

Delaware awarded $18 million to Bloom Energy in 2011 to construct a 30 megawatt (MW) fuel cell facility in the state, the power from which Delmarva Power & Light agreed to purchase. To pay for construction of the facility, state regulators added a hidden surcharge to customer bills.

At the time, a consultant hired by Delmarva Power & Light told the Delaware Public Service Commission (PSC) that the Bloom deal would cost customers about $1 per month over the life of the 21-year contract, with the cost in 2013 expected to be 35 cents a month. A separate analysis conducted by consultant hired by the PSC pegged the lifetime average at $1.34 per month and $1.20 per month this year.

 

Both Delmarva Power and Light and the PSC appear to have grossly underestimated the true cost of the project. Residential customers will pay a $3.83 surcharge in September, which is almost 1,000 percent higher than Delmarva’s estimate and more than 200 percent higher than the PSC’s, according to the Wilmington News Journal. If Delmarva’s request of $2.6 million in subsidies for September continues, Delawareans would fork over more than $31 million annually to Bloom.

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2013/09/23/the-bloom-energy-rip-off/

 

a fool born every minute

[PeterMP]

To essentially go back in a circle to where we started, we are NOT trying to implement the German plan.  The German plan was to cut CO2 emissions, while simultaneously trying to close perfectly good nuclear power plants.

 

Nobody (worth talking about) is talking about closing down the existing nuclear power plants and Obama and many environmental organizations (like the Sierra club) are actually supporting bills that include incentives to build more nuclear power plants.

 

And that doesn't even get into the issues I talked about initially with respect to solar and wind energy limitations in Germany as compared to here.

 

Just looking at nuclear energy should tell you the comparision to Germany is badly flawed to the point of being dumb, stupid, useless and realistically just propoganda.

 

The fact of th matter is that for every major environmental policy that I know of industry has BADLY over estimated the effects.

 

The same industry was talking about huge costs with respect to acid rain related regulations.  Regulations that many people consider (when all costs (direct and indirected) are included)) SAVED US tax payers money over the long run.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/09/how-the-clean-air-act-has-saved-22-trillion-in-health-care-costs/262071/

[twa]

when all costs (direct and indirect) are included makes accounting creative.

 

Germany is certainly not the US....they are burning more coal and Texas mesquite  (and I wouldn't count on nuke being phased out there)

 

does that look like cutting co2 emissions?

Have no fear though,we are fracking and building NG transport to help them out...and the mesquite is growing as usual

 

 

add

you might find this interesting

http://www.windaction.org/news/38728

[PeterMP]

when all costs (direct and indirect) are included makes accounting creative.

 

Germany is certainly not the US....they are burning more coal and Texas mesquite  (and I wouldn't count on nuke being phased out there)

does that look like cutting co2 emissions?

Have no fear though,we are fracking and building NG transport to help them out...and the mesquite is growing as usual

 

 

add

you might find this interesting

http://www.windaction.org/news/38728

If you have an issue with the accounting, then point it out.

 

I actually don't have an issue with wood being used for energy as long as it coming from well managed forrests.  You cut the tree down, convert it into CO2.  The next tree grows taking in the CO2.

 

What sort of conclusions can you draw from 2 months of data?

 

How about something like this:

 

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=en_atm_co2e_pc&hl=en&dl=en&idim=country:DEU:GBR:FRA#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=en_atm_co2e_pc&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:DEU:GBR:FRA:USA&ifdim=region&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

 

Looks they are doing pretty well compared to us.  Yeah, we've gone down a lot quickly, but that's mostly tied to the recession.  Looks like even before the recession they were on a pretty good long term down trend.

 

And, they have issues that we shouldn't/don't have in terms of solar and wind energy as I've already stated (the North Sea is cold and many people don't live on the North Sea and their coast line on the North Sea isn't very larage), but we have plenty of good coast line that makes for decent wind farms in many cases that have lot's of people living near it.

[twa]

well managed forests? LOL dang mesquite grows like a weed w/o management.

 

with the geniuses in charge here maybe it will be cost effective renewable fuel here soon as well (Europe get carbon credits for wood here despite the high costs and fuel used to harvest and ship)

 

perhaps their official co2 rate has went down because they can't afford it and are reduced to stealing trees and coal to burn at home

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/tree-theft-on-the-rise-in-germany-as-heating-costs-increase-a-878013.html

 

Progress 

 

add

the data is to show nuclear is still close to the same %

 

add

more fun...you should read the whole series

 

This leaves a dirty stain on Germany's environmental statistics. While the amount of electricity from renewable energy rose by 10.2 percent in 2012, the first year of the new energy policy, the amount of electricity generated in hard coal and brown coal plants also increased by 5 percent each. As a result, German CO2 emissions actually increased by 2 percent in 2012. Environment Minister Altmaier was clearly upset, saying: "This development cannot become a tendency."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/high-costs-and-errors-of-german-transition-to-renewable-energy-a-920288-3.html

[Slateman]

Just read the OP. I find it ironic that someone would say anything good about Spain's economy.

[PeterMP]

Between two months?

 

It is still meaningless.

 

Their nuclear power production in real terms is on a multi-year down trend:

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Electricity_production_in_Germany.PNG

 

Transportation costs have to calculated in carefully.  In terms of the an energy unit what is the costs/energy used of mining, developing and shipping coal to Germany?

 

To only take into those costs for only one form of energy is not an apples-apples comparision.

 

And yes on a clean energy front Germany is having issues for the reasons I've already commented on multiple times in this thread.

[twa]

not between two months, compare to the earlier pie chart

 

I take those costs specifically for wood since it is a GREEN fuel and earns pollution credits which coal does not

 

no credits, no wood (my homies in W Texas probably wish I'd shut up before I scare the suckers away)

 

add

 wouldn't the price reflect those costs?

wood is both higher cost and more polluting per energy unit than Anthracite coal (not sure on brown coal)

[PeterMP]

not between two months, compare to the earlier pie chart

 

I take those costs specifically for wood since it is a GREEN fuel and earns pollution credits which coal does not

 

no credits, no wood (my homies in W Texas probably wish I'd shut up before I scare the suckers away)

 

add

 wouldn't the price reflect those costs?

wood is both higher cost and more polluting per energy unit than Anthracite coal (not sure on brown coal)

 

 

1.  Price doesn't reflect production costs.  It reflects supply and demand.

 

2.  I was talking about environomental costs (e.g. CO2 emissions).  You can't say that the wood is less environmentally favorable because of the environmental costs of transport w/o taking into account the environmental costs of mining coal and its own transport.

 

3.  I'd be surprised if wood is really that much worse in terms of things like heavy metals and the like that are worse.  Things like the organics and nitrates and sulfates aren't that bad for the environment and can be scrubbed out pretty well.

[twa]

supply and demand matter little when you game the system

 

Germany with it's small change so far is seeing economists warnings and impacts on customers,as have others....next comes instability

[PeterMP]

supply and demand matter little when you game the system

 

Germany with it's small change so far is seeing economists warnings and impacts on customers,as have others....next comes instability

 

Supply and demand matters more than production costs even in the gamed system.

 

What Germany is doing is very difficult.  They don't have good conditions for most renewable energies, and since 2005, they've decreased their nuclear production by 1/3.  For a country that was getting a good bit of their elelctricity from their nuclear energy that's a big drop.  To try and do that and reduce fossil fuel usage isn't easy.

 

Whether it'll work or not will depend on whether the Germans are willing to live unlike any other western society.  I don't know.

 

But with respect to the US and what people like Obama want to do here, it is irrelevant (due to the differences in the desire for the future of nuclear energy and environmental conditions that are more favorable to renewable energy sources).

[twa]

favorable as in cheaper?....I think not

 

maybe we can get some wood stoves too 

[PeterMP]

favorable as in cheaper?....I think not

 

maybe we can get some wood stoves too 

 

Due to the amount of sun light this country gets as compared to Germany and where much of our populace lives in terms of areas producing wind energy, it is more effecient and therefore cheaper.

 

In most of the US, the same solar panel would generate more electricity than it does in Germany.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/08/germany-has-five-times-as-much-solar-power-as-the-u-s-despite-alaska-levels-of-sun/

 

This means in real terms, solar energy costs less to generate in most of the US than Germany.  Either fewer panels to generate the same amount of electricity or more electricity for the same panels.

 

And for what it is worth the Germans just sent a pretty major defeat to the most anti-renewable energy party in Germany.

 

http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Renewable-Energy/German-Elections-Seal-Fate-of-Renewable-Energy.html

 

And despite your insinuations and their disadvantage, Germany generates more of their electricity from solar than any other 1st world country.

[twa]

odd that solar costs more here if it is so efficient here ..more than any other 1st world country isn't saying much(other than raising rates obviously)

 

wouldn't you say their choice to increase solar is a questionable one?

 

add

it seems THEY have questions

 

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-solar-subsidies-to-remain-high-with-consumers-paying-the-price-a-842595.html

 

Solar subsidies cost German consumers billions of dollars a year and are widely regarded as inefficient. Even environmentalists are concerned that Berlin's focus on solar comes at the detriment of other renewables. But the solar industry has a powerful lobby, and politicians have proven powerless to resist.

 

add

that link is fun, did you know German biomass plants burning Texas wood  are several times more efficient than solar?....and renewable   

 

 

for those unfamiliar with the costs of energy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#US_Department_of_Energy_estimates

[PeterMP]

odd that solar costs more here if it is so efficient here ..more than any other 1st world country isn't saying much(other than raising rates obviously)

 

wouldn't you say their choice to increase solar is a questionable one?

 

add

it seems THEY have questions

 

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-solar-subsidies-to-remain-high-with-consumers-paying-the-price-a-842595.html

 

Solar subsidies cost German consumers billions of dollars a year and are widely regarded as inefficient. Even environmentalists are concerned that Berlin's focus on solar comes at the detriment of other renewables. But the solar industry has a powerful lobby, and politicians have proven powerless to resist.

 

add

that link is fun, did you know German biomass plants burning Texas wood  are several times more efficient than solar?....and renewable   

 

 

for those unfamiliar with the costs of energy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#US_Department_of_Energy_estimates

 

Repeat after me:

Production costs do not determine price (espeically in a gamed market).

 

We're to the point with solar, we are about even with plants (and probably ahead), but if it is trees from TX where they get more sun light as compared to solar panels in Germany, I can absolutely believe that.

 

Did you see the WaPo story I posted.  Their sun light recieved is about unpar with Alaska.

 

If Germany wants to live like most other western nations do currently, they are making some questionable decisions.

 

Though from several perspectives, I'm starting to wonder if a normal western life isn't vastly over rated so I'm intriuged by where they are going, where they end up, and if they are going to be able to sustain it in a democratic nation.

[twa]

yes I am aware we get more sun, the cost estimates I linked are for sunny US.

 

Going back to wood stoves and candles might be fun....maybe we can recycle the fat sucked out of all these people

 

speaking of gamed markets....their scheme rewards inefficiency(as does some of ours)

 

from the link above

 

German Physical Society writes in an expert opinion, stating, "Photovoltaics are fundamentally incapable of replacing any other type of power plant." Essentially, every solar array must be backed up with a conventional power plant as a reserve, creating an expensive double infrastructure.

 

..

[PeterMP]

yes I am aware we get more sun, the cost estimates I linked are for sunny US.

 

Going back to wood stoves and candles might be fun....maybe we can recycle the fat sucked out of all these people

 

speaking of gamed markets....their scheme rewards inefficiency(as does some of ours)

 

from the link above

 

German Physical Society writes in an expert opinion, stating, "Photovoltaics are fundamentally incapable of replacing any other type of power plant." Essentially, every solar array must be backed up with a conventional power plant as a reserve, creating an expensive double infrastructure.

 

..

 

Whether what they are doing rewards ineffeciency depends on how you want to measure ineffeciency.  If you are measuring effecient based on net and long term-CO2 production, it doesn't.

 

How old is that report?

 

The issues with "back up" for solar and wind are going away.

 

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20069679-54/power-plant-to-steady-wind-and-solar-with-gas/

 

It is true that originally people built essentially separate and backup power plants, but today we are doing a much better job of building integrated and effecient systems.