Are Green Jobs an Economic Black Hole?

[mcsluggo]

there are long run spillover benefits to pushing new technology, even even ignoring the un-priced negative externality (pollution).  But there is a huge difference between subsidizing an incrimental shift towards a greater mix of those new technologies in a well supplied grid in rich countries.  .....   

 

 

.... versus forcing poor countries with completely inadequate access to power to adopt new and more expensive technologies, when it means that large swathes of the population will have NO power.   The environmentalist community is pushing development institutions to force poor countries to have MUCH higher renewables proportions than exist anywhere in the rich world.  They do so, because this is where they can have leverage (since the poor countries can't afford to build the plants without the rich world grants, and development institutions providing concessional financing --- poor countries are left with the choice between green power or no power).  But this means that rich environmentalists think that the very poorest inthe world should bear a HIGHER proportion of the burden of protecting the planet from global warming than the rich countries.   That is absurd.

 

I am very happy with incentivising these new technologies.  Its a gamble, and the possibility is there that many of these will never reach a cost level where they are independently sustainable... but the thing is we can't KNOW that until enough firms throw themselves against these cost curves---- technnologies only become efficient over time if they are adaptded and improved, and that only happens when they are used.  

 

I like incentives in this area ALOT.   I HATE "thou shalt not" commands, however.  There is a huge difference between providing subsidies to green development and adoption, versus saying that the World Bank is not allowed to develop or finance power projects in poor countries unless they are green.

[Larry]

And yet, I assume that part of the counter argument is that it's tough enough for alternatives to compete against Old Smokey, when Old Smokey has already been built.

And it's also tough to justify getting the US to go green, when were giving other people money to go brown.

[twa]

And yet, I assume that part of the counter argument is that it's tough enough for alternatives to compete against Old Smokey, when Old Smokey has already been built.

And it's also tough to justify getting the US to go green, when were giving other people money to go brown.

 

Old Smokey always needs to be replaced /repaired and costs/benefits are factored into plant lifecycles.

IF the alternative source is viable it will be incorporated.....viability/costs over the life cycle are what is holding back alternatives here.

You can look at the shift going on now to NG in trucking and shippping....viability and costs benefits always win unless someone games the system.

 

If it is our money being spent I have no objection to conditions that could demonstrate feasibility of alternative energy(or advance tech)

if I give you a prius it does not prevent you from buying a normal car with your funds...it instead frees up your funds

 

unless there was no need for the prius

[alexey]

I will have to read more on the Germany situation because that article provides lots of gloat but little info

[twa]

I will have to read more on the Germany situation because that article provides lots of gloat but little info

 

It is interesting to study other efforts, and instructive.....the european ones are good in that they preview obstacles we will face.(though ours do differ somewhat as peter noted)

 

I admit that one was more gloat than substance....I indulge myself at times.(sometimes to excess)

 

some better links earlier or the economist, der spiegel and rueters have quite a bit on the subject as it has matured.

 

energy has always intrigued me,especially the need to balance supply',harm and costs.

[twa]

How do you like your goose cooked?.....or rather falcon or eagle....does Cali have geese?

 

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304703804579379230641329484

The $2.2 Billion Bird-Scorching Solar Project

 

 

Utilities owned by PG&E Corp. and Edison International have agreed to buy electricity generated from the Ivanpah plant under 25-year contracts, according to NRG.

Utility-scale solar plants have come under fire for their costs–Ivanpah costs about four times as much as a conventional natural gas-fired plant but will produce far less electricity—and also for the amount of land they require.

That makes for expensive power. Experts have estimated that electricity from giant solar projects will cost at least twice as much as electricity from conventional sources. But neither the utilities that have contracted to buy the power nor state regulators have disclosed what the price will be, only that it will be passed on to electricity customers.

 

Ivanpath is alive .....Fly Little Birdie, while ya can   

[Larry]

I've always thought that tower and mirror solar looked to be a vastly superior technology. Glad to see people doing it large scale.

Not sure what to do about birds, though.

[twa]

I've always thought that tower and mirror solar looked to be a vastly superior technology. Glad to see people doing it large scale.

Not sure what to do about birds, though.

It is a interesting effort, even if rather limited in scope

a bit of trivia....it has natural gas as a backup for the molten reactor

300 Million in federal funds, a 1'6 billion federal loan guarantee,a 30% tax credit, twice the price for the electricity generated vs a conventional plant and a guaranteed 25 yr energy purpose contract later....they are having doubts   

God I love government weanies

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/14/business/energy-environment/a-big-solar-plant-opens-facing-doubts-about-its-future.html

[twa]

gonna be a fun summer

 

 

U.S. electricity prices may be going up for good Experts warn of a growing fragility as coal-fired plants are shut down, nuclear power is reduced and consumers switch to renewable energy.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-power-prices-20140426,0,6329274.story#ixzz306Pd1D8O

[Larry]

U.S. electricity prices may be going up for good Experts warn of a growing fragility as coal-fired plants are shut down, nuclear power is reduced and consumers switch to renewable energy.

. . . . Because they're switching to gas.

[twa]

. . . . Because they're switching to gas.

 

gas is a bit higher than coal, but the green mandates are much higher and responsible for both closing coal and the need to have cleaner generation that can ramp up quickly since solar/wind is unreliable.

 

Have fun with the choices 

[PeterMP]

gas is a bit higher than coal, but the green mandates are much higher and responsible for both closing coal and the need to have cleaner generation that can ramp up quickly since solar/wind is unreliable.

 

Have fun with the choices 

 

But if you read the piece, the POSSIBLE increased price is tied to POSSIBLE fluctuations in natural gas prices mostly and what for the most part are short term issues with nuclear.

 

The feds aren't mandating the coal plants closed.  They've changed emissions policies some.

 

The electric generating companies have decided to "close" them rather than make changes to bring them with in the requirements..  Mostly, because it seems like gas prices will generally stay low for the foreseeable future.

 

If they are wrong, I'm sure they will reopen the coal plants and make the changes needed to bring them in line with the regulation (yes it is possible that there will be short term fluctuations that cause increases in prices where it still doesn't make sense to bring the coal plants on line, but if they really are going up and going to stay up you'll see the coal plants come back on line most likely).

 

CA is a special case, and if you look at average electric for the US, then yes, they will drive up prices, but that doesn't really affect me or you in terms of the prices we pay.

 

And if that's what the CA voters want, then why is that my or your problem.

 

Let's play a game.  Pick a state and tell me how much you think electric will costs there this summer compared to last.

[twa]

If you read the piece the mandates are a primary driver in the increase.

 

coal, under the regulations being put out by the current clowns is not feasible.

 

Nuclear has been strangled by the same crowd.

 

It is not just Cali, though they are in the lead for idiocy.

 

I'd rather wait and watch than make price projections

 

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/eper_10.htm

 

 

[twa]

Enjoy your fruit

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/01/us-usa-climatechange-obama-analysis-idUSKBN0EC13420140601

http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-06/documents/20140602ria-clean-power-plan.pdf

Relative to the base case, about 30 to 49 GW of coal-fired capacity is projected to be uneconomic to maintain (about 12 percent to 19 percent of all coal-fired capacity projected to be in service in the base case) by 2020 under the range of scenarios analyzed.”

And here’s a key forecast in the rule itself: “EPA projects coal production for use by the power sector, a large component of total coal production, will decline by roughly 25 to 27 percent in 2020 from base case levels. The use of coal by the power sector will decrease roughly 30 to 32 percent in 2030

[twa]

WH: EPA rule will lower power bills, create jobs

Read more: http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/207938-wh-epa-rule-will-lower-bills-create-jobs#ixzz33XfanYes 
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

 

[twa]

Let me know when alt energy does this

 

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2014/10/17/shale-boom-helping-american-consumers-like-never-before/

 

The drop in crude has pulled retail gasoline down more than 50 cents a gallon from the year’s high in April. That means annual savings of $500 for the average U.S. household, which consumes about 1,000 gallons of fuel a year, according to data from the Federal Highway Administration and Energy Information Administration.

 

 

instead of THIS

 

http://fortune.com/2014/10/14/europe-reels-under-new-barrage-of-awful-economic-data/

 

I hope this doesn't crash the European market for Texas mesquite wood....of course we can always sell it to freezing Yankees that won't drill or approve pipelines .  

 

 

[Larry]

I hope this doesn't crash the European market for Texas mesquite wood....

You know, that's like the fourth time you've trotted out that sound bite.

Every one of the previous times, I've asked you to support it. And you've acted like you didn't read it.

Actually went out and did some research, on my own, on the subject. Closest I can find are reports of a German company buying sawdust from the USA. (Because the company takes the sawdust and turns it into sawdust pellets, that supposedly burn easier than actual wood does.)

 

Apparently, the company literally does not want to buy wood, (which they can buy, domestically), because if they do, they have to spend money to turn it into sawdust.

But then, I'm certain that you aren't trying to sell a pile of sawdust as "Texas mesquite wood".

Wood you?

 

----------

 

Edit: 

 

Here's an article about a different US company, profiting from the deal in a different way. 

 

RenewableEnergyWorld.com: US Biomass: Where Do All the Wood Pellets Go?

 

 

Europe is usually the last place on one's mind when riding through miles of surprisingly desolate pine forests, stretching from the Alabama line to Georgia's marshy coast. But, in an unlikely convergence of European eco-policy and Southeastern pines, a Georgia wood pellet plant is now supplying a German-based utility with a steady stream of carbon-neutral energy.

 

For over a year now, Georgia Biomass, L.L.C., a wholly owned subsidiary of RWE Innogy, Inc., has overseen the production of 750,000 metric tons of wood pellets per year.  After a 100-mile rail trip from its Waycross, Ga. plant to the port of Savannah, the pellets are received as cargo bound for Europe where they are co-fired in coal-burning plants.

 

If not for the largesse of European utilities required to meet government carbon emissions standards for their coal-burning plants, however, the U.S. pellet export industry would arguably not exist.  Such emission standards have yet to reach the federal level here in the U.S. 

 

Even so, pellet exports from the U.S. to Europe currently average over 2 million metric tons per year, which converts to about 450 MWs of electrical capacity solely from combusted pellets.  But that’s still a tiny fraction of Europe’s energy needs — thus, there’s room for growth as a number of coal-fired power plants switch from coal to pellets.  By 2020, Europe may annually import as much as 40 million metric tons of pellets from all sources, up from today’s 3.5 million metric tons of total pellet imports, says bio-energy consultant William Strauss.

 

“As long as the wood used to make these things comes from certified sustainable sources, then the Europeans quantify it as carbon neutral,” said Strauss, president of the Maine-based FutureMetrics.  “Even though it costs more to burn wood pellets than coal, it’s still cheaper than the carbon tax.”

 

 

More at the link. 

[chipwhich]

Damn internet search engines, work for some not for others.

 

http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/article/Europe-energy-found-in-Corpus-4468007.php

 

A little more help for ya Larry.  A little research is your friend.

 

http://www.greenheartenergy.com/mesquite-woodchips

 

La di da di da

 

http://www.chron.com/news/gallery/Greenheart-61231.php

[twa]

your search skills need work, they do pelletize it for shipping

 http://fuelfix.com/blog/2013/04/28/europe-energy-found-in-corpus/

 

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Europe-finds-a-new-Texas-energy-source-mesquite-4547436.php

 

http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/9748/german-pellets-texas-facility-achieves-enplus-certification

 

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/06/where-do-all-the-wood-pellets-go

 

http://www.woodworkingnetwork.com/wood-market-trends/woodworking-industry-news/wood-manufacturing-supplier-news/Massive-Wood-Pellet-Plant-Construction-Continues-208113331.html#sthash.iwXrDFVM.dpbs

http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/article/East-Texas-to-become-Europe-s-wood-basket-2752641.php

 

WHY???

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/09/wood-burning-power-plants-misguided-climate-change-solution/

 

texas keep yankees and krauts from freezing a good idea?

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

 

it does lower the crime rate I guess

[chipwhich]

Sorry to interfere twa, Searchin' ain't EZ

[Larry]

Damn internet search engines, work for some not for others.

 

http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/article/Europe-energy-found-in-Corpus-4468007.php

 

A little more help for ya Larry.  A little research is your friend.

 

http://www.greenheartenergy.com/mesquite-woodchips

 

La di da di da

 

http://www.chron.com/news/gallery/Greenheart-61231.php

 

Thanks. 

 

Dunno why I didn't find that.  My latest search was "Germany buying wood US", although I tried several similar things.  (On previous searches, I'd included the word "mesquite", which seemed to find nothing at all.  Although, admittedly, many searches returned well over 10 pages, and I only read the first few, before trying different search terms.) 

 

The article I found makes it look like there's huge money in it, too.  I think it said they're paying like $27 a ton (and they're buying trees, not sawdust, and chipping, drying, and compressing it themselves), and selling it in Europe for $165 a ton, not including shipping and similar costs. 

 

(It also claims that they think they could double their current output, if there was enough demand for it.) 

 

Certainly looks like the European carbon tax has created a lot of profit, in the US. 

 

(I wonder if those things count towards our "Energy importer/exporter" statistics.) 

[twa]

our exports are certainly up here

 

with the stupid rules they are certainly increasing across the board....along with jobs(added a record number past 12 months,nearly half a million)

[twa]

Electricity Prices Soaring In Top Wind Power States

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/10/17/electricity-prices-soaring-in-top-10-wind-power-states/

 

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the 10 states in which wind power accounts for the highest percentage of the state’s electricity generation are:

Iowa – 27%

South Dakota – 26

Kansas – 19

Idaho – 16

Minnesota – 16

North Dakota – 16

Oklahoma – 15

Colorado – 14

Oregon – 12

Wyoming – 8

The wind power industry claims switching from conventional power to wind power will save consumers money and spur the economy. However, data from the top 10 wind power states show just the opposite. From 2008-2013electricity prices rose an average of 20.7 percent in the top 10 wind power states, which is seven-fold higher than the national electricity price increase of merely 2.8 percent.

.

.

 

The electricity price increases in states producing the most wind power don’t tell the whole story. Federal and state taxpayer subsidies to wind power producers hide additional costs of wind power. The federal wind power Production Tax Credit (PTC), for example, gave wind power producers 2.3 cents for every kilowatt hour of wind power production last year. With U.S. retail electricity prices at 10.08 cents per kilowatt hour, the PTC allowed wind power producers to hide over 20 percent of wind power costs. This allowed the wind power industry to charge the American people still more money in backdoor tax bills, in addition to the higher retail electricity prices documented above.

Higher electricity prices in states producing the most wind power are taking a devastating toll on disposable incomes and the overall economy.

.

[Larry]

Dang.  We got places generating around 20% of their electricity, from wind?  I would have thought it was less than 1%. 

 

Although I wonder if this is "percent of energy consumption" or "percent of energy generated".  If State X imports almost all of their electricity, then it becomes easier for a high percentage of there generation to be wind.  (Because they don't have much generation.) 

[twa]

Dang.  We got places generating around 20% of their electricity, from wind?  I would have thought it was less than 1%. 

 

Although I wonder if this is "percent of energy consumption" or "percent of energy generated".  If State X imports almost all of their electricity, then it becomes easier for a high percentage of there generation to be wind.  (Because they don't have much generation.) 

 

 

largest percentage generated by source, importers certainly skew numbers

net by source is another matter

http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=IA#tabs-4

 

texas gets about 30% from wind now at peak(base is probably about 16%), if the govt keeps subsidizing it perhaps it will grow to the largest percentage....if people can stomach the bills

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/26/1309861/-Texas-sets-new-peak-wind-record-for-state-and-probably-for-nation-too-says-U-S-EIA

 

add

 new Texas record of 38.4% from wind

http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/03/27/5687340/wind-power-sets-new-daily-records.html

 

problem is those numbers are only part of the story 

http://knowledgeproblem.com/2013/09/05/eia-shows-higher-wind-power-output-cutting-into-baseload-power-generation/