WSJ/ The Non-Green Jobs Boom

[PeterMP]

I'm not saying that it is BAD if we make and export MORE of anything. I'm saying that pretending like fossil fuels are REALLY economically superior to non-fossil fuels is naive.

It is good that we get some value out of fossil fuels. You'd exect that we globally have been subsidizing for a long time would actually have some specific BENEFIT to us.

(From reading the CNN piece, we are still a net importer of oil. We just have more gasoline than we need because we have more refining capability than we need.)

[twa]

Texas has been exporting refined products to the Yankees for ages,soon west texas crude will need to be exported to northern refineries(already a shortage in light/sweet refining capacity)

the lack of understanding of the oil business would be funny if it wasn't so sad

[twa]

Renewables Must Learn From Natural Gas

http://theenergycollective.com/cliftonyin/116776/renewables-must-learn-natural-gas

Natural gas is now tied with coal as the United States’ top source of electricity. It’s a milestone that caps a historic upheaval in the energy industry. Natural gas did what renewable energy has been trying to do on and off for almost four decades. And it did so by winning the race to cost and performance competitiveness: natural gas is cheaper and of equal performance to coal and renewable energy is simply not. For climate and renewable advocates, the rise of natural gas should be more than just the next fossil fuel boogeyman or a short-term cut in greenhouse gases – it should play the role as model for making renewable energy the dominant source of electricity in America (and the world).

Natural gas is just the latest in a long history of the government supporting and investing in breakthrough technologies. Sustained federal government support since the 1970s has proven essential to the industry being able to tap into shale gas with new drilling techniques and technologies. The Breakthrough Institute, a non-partisan think tank, released a study on this very subject last year detailing how decades of government investments in R&D, tax credits, and public-private partnerships made today’s natural gas boom possible. The Associated Press finally picked up the story this week and observes that the Department of Energy invested roughly $137 million in gas research over three decades and that the federal tax credit for drillers constituted $10 billion between 1980 and 2002.

Of course, this is counter to the narrative developed by some that the shale gas revolution is a triumph of the free market. A recent blog post by the American Enterprise Institute’s (AEI) Mark Perry, for example, insists on solely crediting “market forces” for the revolution. Another by AEI’s Steven Hayward characterizes it as occurring “away from the greedy grasp of Washington.” And IER’s Daniel Simmons in this very blog series perpetuates this narrative. The fact is even stakeholders in the shale gas industry recognize that the government was crucial to the natural gas boom happening at all. “[The Department of Energy (DOE)] did a hell of a lot of work, and I can’t give them enough credit for that,” notes geologist and former Mitchell Energy Vice President Dan Steward. “DOE started it, and other people took the ball and ran with it. You cannot diminish DOE’s involvement.”

It’s also counter to the narrative by many that renewable energy is ready for primetime and all that’s needed is more deployment incentives. Unfortunately, renewable energy is not cost-competitive with fossil fuels in most circumstances without significant government subsidy and won’t be without more innovation. Nor is it a mystery as to what kinds of renewable energy innovations are needed.“We need to invent new energy technologies. As one example, we can’t store energy worth a damn at the moment,” Nathan Myhrvold noted earlier this year. “We need higher efficiency in solar. We need new kinds of nuclear technology…We need lower cost for all of these things.

[alexey]

Renewable energy sources are not cost competitive with fossil fuels because a significant portion of fossil fuel cost is being deferred.

(and socialized)

[twa]

Renewable energy sources are not cost competitive with fossil fuels because a significant portion of fossil fuel cost is being deferred.

(and socialized)

So are the costs of renewables...and even then they are not cost effective :ols

in fact they even screw over some renewables in favor of others

http://www.forbes.com/sites/uciliawang/2012/08/29/geothermal-energys-trouble-competing-with-solar/

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/09/28/wind-energy-set-for-95-percent-drop/

Wind Energy Set for 95 Percent Drop?

The U.S. wind energy market may be about to be hit by a massive bombshell. A wind power tax credit is set to expire at the end of the year, and if it is not renewed, the market could shrink by an astonishing 95 percent, according to the world’s largest manufacturer of wind turbines. With Mitt Romney and congressional Republicans making noises that they will oppose the renewal of this 20-year old tax credit this fall, the wind-power industry is sounding the alarm and rushing to take advantage of the tax credit before it expires

...

If your business can’t survive without a government subsidy after 20 years of trying, you are doing something wrong.

This exposes the basic problem that continues to frustrate the green lobby: On a level playing field, green energy just can’t compete.

[alexey]

You are talking about it as if climate change is not real and fossil fuels will never run out.

Let me know how you think we should manage the inevitable transition from fossil fuels, if your worldview covers that.

[twa]

You are talking about it as if climate change is not real and fossil fuels will never run out.

Let me know how you think we should manage the inevitable transition from fossil fuels, if your worldview covers that.

I'm not sure natural gas will run out since both it and oil can be abiotic,but even if it is limited or fossil based only it is best addressed by utilising our domestic resources and funnelling funds saved into R&D.(as I have called for repeatedly)

Increased NG use is vastly cleaner than what we historically have used and even is suited for transport greatly reducing any impact on climate that may exist.(and even costs of diesel alt can be cut)

transitioning will naturally occur as prices rise due to supply issues (if it runs out it will be gradual) and alt energy tech will have advanced greatly.

massive expansion of alt energy to the point of replacing fossil fuels at this point makes no sense economically,or from a natural resource perspective....it is simply impossible

any questions?

add

I also think nuclear should be expanded as a base electricity source,but regardless,NG is going to be expanding.

http://www.c2es.org/publications/looming-natural-gas-transition-united-states

Natural Gas Could Become Dominant in the U.S. Within One to Two Decades

While petroleum still reigns supreme today, within one to two decades, natural gas might surpass it as the dominant energy provider. In fact, recent trends suggest that another transition is already underway. In particular, while petroleum and coal consumption have dropped steadily since 2006, natural gas consumption has increased.

[alexey]

...

Increased NG use is vastly cleaner than what we historically have used and even is suited for transport greatly reducing any impact on climate that may exist.(and even costs of diesel alt can be cut)

transitioning will naturally occur as prices rise due to supply issues (if it runs out it will be gradual) and alt energy tech will have advanced greatly.

any questions?

add

I also think nuclear should be expanded as a base electricity source,but regardless,NG is going to be expanding.

...

I understand that natural gas is an improvement over oil, so this is a welcome development. Obviously there are concerns about fracking liquids making it into the water supply, but in terms of energy sources natural gas seems to be an improvement.

I have only one question about your approach. We have seen free market forces maximize short term profits even in light of obvious concerns about sustainability and long term viability. What happens if the need to switch energy sources ends up greatly outpacing our capacity for doing so?

[twa]

What happens if the need to switch energy sources ends up greatly outpacing our capacity for doing so?

a situation we will find ourselves in if we depend on alternatives right?:evilg:

we have vast domestic sources of NG and more worldwide,we have a lot of oil as well....and fracking has been demonstrated safe if done properly

if you believe alt energy is feasible ,and can be sustainable,my approach makes perfect sense.

If you don't, then mine still makes sense with only R&D funds lost and domestic infrastructure,jobs and manufacturing benefiting .

not much to argue over,the future is coming regardless(though we should be further down the path)

[twa]

A illustration of the bizarre

We subsidise windmills made in China,then subsidise the Chinese windfarm....with money borrowed from the Chinese...the same with solar

We get debt and higher energy costs while China pollutes the planet producing these 'green' products on a scale unseen....meanwhile oil and gas is continuously naturally seeping out of US soil .

The Onion needs to write it up

[Burgold]

In a way, it's oddly encouraging to read a thread where conservatives are proudly extolling the growth of jobs and the economy. Strange, but encouraging.

[twa]

In a way, it's oddly encouraging to read a thread where conservatives are proudly extolling the growth of jobs and the economy. Strange, but encouraging.

Just imagine how much better it would be w/o idiots in the way;)

but since you mention jobs and economy

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-09-26/red-blue-states-income-economy/57846600/1

http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/

[Koolblue13]

A illustration of the bizarre

We subsidise windmills made in China,then subsidise the Chinese windfarm....with money borrowed from the Chinese...the same with solar

We get debt and higher energy costs while China pollutes the planet producing these 'green' products on a scale unseen....meanwhile oil and gas is continuously naturally seeping out of US soil .

The Onion needs to write it up

That is worse than using our Chinese made equipment to mine gas, we send to other countries to refine and sell to Saudi Arabia to be able to buy back.

[Larry]

In a way, it's oddly encouraging to read a thread where conservatives are proudly extolling the growth of jobs and the economy. Strange, but encouraging.

But, you don;t understand the message that they're trying to push.

(This is understandable, since the message he's trying to push is so stupid that he won't come out and say it.)

The message is that "Big Oil, after decades of federal subsidies running over $10B, has reached the point where it's economically competitive. Therefore, we absolutely must not in any way subsidize alternative energy, because we must not, under any circumstances, subsidize any business that isn't already profitable."

[twa]

Larry ....you paint a false picture

What would the subsidy required be to provide our energy needs with alt energy?....trillions?

I have no problem with doing away with or equalising subsidies EXCEPT those that encourage domestic production.

btw mine gas?...ship unrefined?...Sell to Saudis? ...this is not reality

[Larry]

Larry ....you paint a false picture

What would the subsidy required be to provide our energy needs with alt energy?....trillions?

Wow, you're right.

It would cost a whole bunch of money to completely transform all energy needs in the US to alternative sources, right now, this instant.

Therefore we should not make any effort to so much as study the technology.

[alexey]

a situation we will find ourselves in if we depend on alternatives right?:evilg:

we have vast domestic sources of NG and more worldwide,we have a lot of oil as well....and fracking has been demonstrated safe if done properly

if you believe alt energy is feasible ,and can be sustainable,my approach makes perfect sense.

If you don't, then mine still makes sense with only R&D funds lost and domestic infrastructure,jobs and manufacturing benefiting .

not much to argue over,the future is coming regardless(though we should be further down the path)

Sounds like you got a great short to medium term plan that does not account for long term implications or global warming.

Long term, your energy policy is like driving into a wall and hoping that the free market will press the brakes. We needed to start taking steps to transition to sustainable energy sources decades ago. Small changes now will have great impact down the road. Longer we wait, more painful it will be.

[twa]

Sounds like you got a great short to medium term plan that does not account for long term implications or global warming.

Long term, your energy policy is like driving into a wall and hoping that the free market will press the brakes. We needed to start taking steps to transition to sustainable energy sources decades ago. Small changes now will have great impact down the road. Longer we wait, more painful it will be.

Transitioning to cleaner fuel is not going to affect global warming?????

I have news for you...there is NO other viable option on the scale we require.

Do you seriously believe transitioning now(with present tech) is really feasible either economically or from a resources available standpoint?

Alt energy is just a niche market that requires large subsidies at this point.

It is not Big Oil holding it back...it is reality

[Koolblue13]

Transitioning to cleaner fuel is not going to affect global warming?????

I have news for you...there is NO other viable option on the scale we require.

Do you seriously believe transitioning now(with present tech) is really feasible either economically or from a resources available standpoint?

Alt energy is just a niche market that requires large subsidies at this point.

It is not Big Oil holding it back...it is reality

It's reality alright. The reality that people aren't willing to change their habits and lifestyles enough for it to matter.

[Larry]

Do you seriously believe transitioning now(with present tech) is really feasible either economically or from a resources available standpoint?

Do you seriously believe that if you point out that alternatives aren't profitable RIGHT NOW, another 100 times, that that unchallenged fact will somehow become relevant?

[twa]

It's reality alright. The reality that people aren't willing to change their habits and lifestyles enough for it to matter.

exactly....that is reality

kinda like the vinegar thing

---------- Post added September-30th-2012 at 10:00 AM ----------

Do you seriously believe that if you point out that alternatives aren't profitable RIGHT NOW, another 100 times, that that unchallenged fact will somehow become relevant?

it is more than not being profitable, it cannot provide our scale of energy use

even the subsidised wind and solar is dependant on fossil fuel

how far into the future do you wish to pretend we are?

[Koolblue13]

It's exactly like the vinegar thing.

[alexey]

Transitioning to cleaner fuel is not going to affect global warming?????

I have news for you...there is NO other viable option on the scale we require.

Do you seriously believe transitioning now(with present tech) is really feasible either economically or from a resources available standpoint?

Alt energy is just a niche market that requires large subsidies at this point.

It is not Big Oil holding it back...it is reality

Not currently having a viable alternative to fossil fuels on the scale we require is not news to me. Not having alternatives to fossil fuels is a huge concern for me. It is a reason why I strongly support us taking steps to find and develop alternatives.

Hopefully it is not news to you that it is unwise to build our economy on an unsustainable resource.

Fossil fuels are great. Of course alt energy requires subsidies at this point. Of course present technology is not good enough to transition. This is why we have to develop it further, etc. I'm not really sure where we disagree. You are talking about the short term and I am taking about the long term.

[twa]

I'm talking both short,intermediate and long, and we do not really disagree.

I would be tickled to death to never see another well or refinery, but till that is feasible we must address the short and medium.

[twa]

on a related note

First-ever HHP Summit attracted hundreds of executives from across the globe representing the rail, marine, mining, drilling, earthmoving and power generation industries

Read more here: http://www.heraldonline.com/2012/10/03/4309485/caterpillar-goes-all-in-on-natural.html#storylink=cpy

"We have decided to go all-in on gas," declared Feucht during his keynote address at HHP Summit on Sept. 27. "We are going to invest because we see a global market long term. Large engines are going gas. It's not debatable; it's our conclusion."

Feucht's remarks confirmed that Caterpillar will provide natural gas fuel as an option for engines across its many high horsepower lines for marine, rail, mining, earthmoving and drilling operations. The company recently announced its first expected liquefied natural gas (LNG)-powered products will likely include Cat 793, 795 and 797 mining trucks, and locomotives produced by Electro-Motive Diesel (EMD), a unit of Caterpillar's Progress Rail Services.

"There is huge economic incentive to move to natural gas," Feucht stated noting that price of oil and gas are going to stay disconnected for the foreseeable future thereby creating an economic incentive to use natural gas in fuel-hungry high horsepower applications.

Current users of natural gas to power high horsepower equipment are realizing a cost savings of 30 to 50 percent. New technologies expanding access in North America have contributed to the low-cost of natural gas.