Sure, everyone tried to get in the game to take advantage of the subsidies. It was a boom-bust energy cycle like you see in other industries. Yes, there was a glut, the stongest/best survived, and some went out of business. It had the intended effect though- the solar industry got off the ground.
Grid parity is a different phenomena. It isn’t something governments can revoke (unless we’re talking about ALECistan deciding to subsidize coal power to price out solar). Once a region goes past grid parity, that acts just like a subsidy, only the price difference is the money you save on energy costs from that point forward. It is happening all over the world right now.
Cite? Things like degredation rates are determined by independent organizations. The guys with a high-quality product will tout those numbers, sure, but they aren’t coming up with them on their own.
Cite that these things haven’t been considered? I’m not sure I should take your word on this point.
I agree. But again, evs and hybrids are improving rapidly, while ICE-based vehicles are practically standing still. Gas likely won’t get cheaper, and will probably become much more expensive. Over 30 years I expect these things to catch on. Or maybe fuel cells will come along, you never know. But as long as the next generation of citizens is not as uneducated as the last, people will simply understand without being told that clean energy is the way to go.
I guess you didn’t understand it. The study divides electricity costs into ‘industrial’ and ‘residential’ for every country, and treats them as separate markets. Grid parity for one happens separately than for the other.
As for residential solar, there are two things you ought to consider. First is the solar lease- I can cite specific examples if you want, but the gist is that the solar company pays all the upfront costs for the system, and the customer then pays the solar company a monthly bill that is lower than their electricity bill. So, $0 down, instant energy savings. ‘Financial hole for years’? You need to update your understanding of this industry, it changes fast.
Second is that many homebuilders are partnering with solar manufacturers and installers to make solar panels just another feature of new homes. This leads to standardization which lowers installation costs (which are lower anyway if you plan on panels from the start). This is just one of the factors driving residential solar prices down right now. Sure, that only applies to new homes, it is still a hassle to retrofit existing homes, and I agree phasing it in will take time. To repeat, I am looking at this over a 30 year time span.
I’m afraid that is all I have time for. I’ll be back.
Absent any constraints developing countries will naturally grow their economies in the cheapest and easiest ways they can. Given that the US, with the largest per-capita carbon footprint in the world, isn’t doing a damn thing about climate change, and outside Europe much of the west isn’t doing all that much either, I can hardly blame them. I’ve already discussed the general framework of a solution, and so have many others.
The developing countries are trying to replicate the western industrial revolution in a very different world than the one of the 18th and 19th centuries, and that implies constraints and responsibilities – as well as the availability of renewables – that didn’t exist hundreds of years ago. It may seem very charitable to give them a pass for irresponsibly forging ahead with grossly polluting industrialization, but the only reason their economies are thriving is because we are buying their cheap products. We – the western world – are the original polluters, still the biggest per-capita polluters, and now the enablers of third-world pollution. Don’t blame them. The solution starts here.
The graph is about growing energy consumption. If you look more carefully at the individual items, the worst, most polluting energy sources are growing most slowly (coal consumption actually starts to decrease) and renewables are growing the fastest. We may be able to slow growth in energy consumption, but the biggest gains will come from more rapidly phasing out the really damaging stuff in favor of clean energy.
Fair enough. I thought you were still on about your national debt analogy. In this context, there is a sort of three-level ideological ranking in which the differences can be characterized thus: At the bottom of the barrel, Republicans simply deny the science of climate change and attribute it to a conspiracy of socialist academics, and carry on polluting with a vengeance. Democrats manage to summon up the courage to discreetly whisper about it (but not too loudly) and in the present political climate are terrified of actually doing anything about it. To get to the third tier – actually taking meaningful action on climate change – you need to get out of the US entirely, and primarily look at Europe.
So? Is anyone surprised that shutting down nuclear plants and burning more coal leads to more CO2 and pollution? Merkel overreacted to Fukushima and blew it big time, providing a case study on what not to do.
When? When US politics and the entire agenda of domestic and international policies is no longer completely dominated by corporate interests and the 1%. As I’ve pointed out, other countries have a much better handle on the national debt.
I am pretty sure I’m in the one percent so I guess I’m the bogeyman you are looking for. But from my perspective everyone else is also hoping to get to the one per cent and that’s why that energy curve won’t change.
We all need someone else to blame and it looks like you are choosing me and Mr Gore. I have assigned myself that bogeyman role already and I am at least encouraged that you are beginning to understand why CO2 will continue to rise as we all put our interest into getting into the one percent ahead of the interests of our descendants. Another name for it is the Tragedy of the Commons.
PS Everyone hates corporations until they analyze their retirement portfolios. But I am not sure they are any more evil than the rest of us even if they are easier to blame.
Getting back to this, it is annoying that you make such claims without any reference whatsoever. This condescending attitude you have towards the solar industry is simply unfounded. These are billion-dollar companies. You can look at their balance sheets and judge their profits for yourself. To suggest that the true costs are some kind of mystery is just silly. It may be a mystery to you, but look, I tell you something you don’t know, later you tell me something I don’t know, that’s how this board works. I don’t hate you for it, I just want you to see this issue more clearly.
It depends what state you’re talking about, but I’ll take the bet. Even Canada is projected to be beyond grid parity by 2020.
I’ve seen the opposite claim. Early adopters… I guess it depends on how early. There are still systems around that were built 30 years ago. They’ve come a long way. Without more specifics, it is hard to say more.
Not really. When oil drops below a certain price, many producers just stop. It isn’t economical to frack below a certain price, or to process tar sands below a certain price, or to deep-sea drill below a certain price. And supplies of cheap oil are limited and shrinking, so frankly there is a floor to the price of fossil fuels, unless demand drops dramatically, at which point we will have succeeded anyway. But now I’m not being specific enough- I’m sure I can find some data on this if you’re interested.
I totally that there will be a range of solutions. For example, moving away from the suburban commuter model can be done in many ways besides telecommuting. Sourcing things more locally means our electric semi tractors won’t have to work so hard. Lots of things. I happen to think solar power is likely to be the single most significant solution.
As for natural gas, the research seems to be mixed. These guys reservedly agree with you, but there are a lot of caveats, the main one being that there really isn’t good data available wrt where methane emissions are coming from. The bottom line though is that natural gas is still a fossil fuel and ought to be tagged for massive reduction if we are serious about mitigating climate change. In the near term it looks like we’re going to burn a lot of it, so I file it under ‘resigned to the reality of these emissions.’
I don’t know what is up with this recurrent preachy tone, especially considering you are almost 180 degrees directly wrong. Check this out. I’d be happy to discuss those points with you. For now I will try to refer back to that if you persist in error, though I remain open to debate if you can produce a solid refutation of my claims, or better support for yours.
Two things. Germany’s solar push started in 1991. The solar industry was much more immature then, meaning it was more expensive and the panels were not as efficient. Thanks to Germany’s initiative, the solar industry developed much more rapidly than it otherwise would have. The result is that nearly any nation could expect a better solar system than Germany’s if they start today with the same motivation and expertise. Even so, renewable power in Germany is taking over the power market, contrary to some claims made in this thread, and is driving the overall cost of energy down.
I’m thinking of places where families have a half-dozen or more children on a routine basis. Maybe that is some places in the US- strict Catholic families, inner-city situations, Mormons… they all need better education and access to birth control. Not that we’ll force anyone to have less babies, but that educated women who have available birth control tend not to have so many children on their own.
But I’m thinking more of India, or Bangladesh, parts of Africa, some Muslim countries. Perhaps my biases are coming into play- I think plenty of evangelicals oppose birth control too. We can’t let them mis-educate foreign populations such that they stumble into population crises. But drawing that line is pretty tricky- anyway, Chief Pedant asked me to consider population. I’m more concerned with clean energy.
Who says I’m an environmentalist? I’m certainly not a Communist. Another thing I’m not is a millionaire or a big corporate representative, so we might as well ignore whatever inclinations toward government action you think I have- I am not someone government will respond to. I can’t effect a government solution.
Taxing the rich more is a good idea, but really a topic for another thread. Improving education is kind of the same thing- I don’t have a strong position on the details of how to provide the best education to the people who need it most.
Like this: “Hey, Sam Stone. Have you heard about the environmental benefits of a vegetarian diet? It is wayyyy more energy efficient, which seems to be important these days, no? Personally, I don’t eat much red meat anymore. I am cheap and bag my lunch as much as I can. My go-to is a turkey sandwich. Recently I switched to Tofurkey- tofu turkey- and guess what? It costs less than half as much, and it tastes exactly the same. Now I feel better. You could do it too. Tell your friends! :)” I’m not going to impose some kind of government restriction- again, I do not have in my grasp a single strand of governmental authority.
30,000 people a year die because of guns. Until solar power kills more people than that, people either have to forget about the ‘dangers’ of solar power or get serious about a solution to gun violence.
All nuclear power creates waste with a half-life measured in thousands of years. I’m not confident humans can control toxic waste for that long. Solar doesn’t produce anything near the waste of nuclear or any other form of energy production (though it isn’t an angel, either). So personally I focus on solar, if other people can get nuclear plants approved then more power to 'em. Worldwide trends seem to be going the other way.
I’m willing to suspend the ‘goose the market’ point until I can come up with something more convincing. But I’m not worried about bankruptcies in a booming market like solar. The culprit in that case is capitalism itself.
I see a lot of debate on this point, but so far it isn’t clear. You may be right that oil drilling produces more methane than fracking. Maybe natural gas really can be superior to coal and oil in terms of GHG.
Trace amounts of silver, but finding ways to cut the silver required is one of the things driving the drop in price of pv. Cadmium and tellurium, but apparently those aren’t very expensive (though cadmium is toxic. These are required for thin film, not silicon pv modules). I’m not aware of any rare-earth metals required.
Really? We’re replacing oil and gas, and you’re worried about the mining impact from silicon, the most abundant element in the Earth’s crust?
It is going to piss off a lot of utility-industry monopolists if they can’t make like the fittest and adapt. At high % of solar saturation I expect electricity delivery will be more storage-node oriented than today’s grid model, which I concede presents its own can of worms, but nothing like AGW does.
I don’t know. How many people will die when the next Assad type of guy gasses a bunch of rioting refugees?
I don’t have a taxation, government solution. It is a voluntary, free-market affair. As you know, no investment is without risk, up to and including the loss of principal. If you think it is a bad bet, you may want to hold back and do more research.
Solar is an example of a smashing success. What’s your point?
Personally, I’m overweight in pv investments, though not absurdly so. As for the world, check out this Bloomberg article. While you’re looking at this article, scroll down to ‘global power generation additions’. Note the whopping projected additions by wind and especially solar by 2030.
But if I were a prophet when it came to predicting investment behavior, I’d either be rich now or am going to be rich in the future. I guess we’ll see.
Come up with a specific example and we’ll talk about it. My cite above takes into account varying electricity costs around the world, subsidies here, no subsidies there. Need specifics.
I think your listed obstacles can be overcome, but yeah, I don’t think 90% solar will happen because it won’t be necessary. More of a theoretical possibility.
Um, global grid parity in all but a few countries takes only until 2020. I’m willing to reconsider my position if you can come up with something more convincing.
Meh. Fossil fuels are reliably dirty and expensive. The financing terms are set in advance. It is a different economic model than drilling. You put up infrastructure; it produces power for 30+ years without any fuel. The uncertainty is in the final size of your profit.
You should abandon your oil-sands projects and focus on solar power.
I agree, to a point. A coal plant can have a lifetime of 50+ years, sometimes quite a bit more. Refineries cost a fortune. Our ships, not to mention our trucks and cars, mostly aren’t set up to run on electricity. On and on. People aren’t going to be willing to just up and walk away from it all. But at least the world has a modern-age project that doesn’t involve blowing each other up.
On a good day, solar + wind already produces over 40% of Germany’s power. We haven’t even seen the alt energy storage revolution yet. I bet renewables are going to be rather big.
Well, for my part, I’m at least encouraged to have your tacit agreement with my points about what can be done about third-world energy consumption and limiting the growth of fossil fuels. At least, I take it from the absence of any argument that you agreed with my points.
Now to the points that you did raise here. First of all I don’t “blame” the 1% or corporations for anything, nor do I “hate” corporations – I’m not a Marxist, for Christ’s sake. What I blame for many of our present ills is a corrupt political system that has permitted many of these moneyed interests to completely control the political system and to align it with all of their mercenary interests. This includes things like loosening pollution regulations on power plants (I believe that one was called the “Clean Air Act” :mad:), allowing more coal plants to be built, subsidizing fossil fuels, failing to make truly meaningful investments in renewables, discouraging US participation in climate treaties, and above all, promulgating the most egregious denialism about climate change. The tragedy of the commons is occurring because of the tragedy of a failed democracy, which is almost entirely in the hands of a ruling oligarchy. In jurisdictions where this is not the case, by and large a good deal more progress has been made in renewable energy and CO2 reduction. Here, this is apparently going to have to wait until a sufficient level of climate catastrophe starts to make denialism politically unpalatable.
I’m not too sure what I tacitly agreed with, but I’m delighted that you overtly agreed we’ll have to wait until a sufficient level of climate catastrophe starts to make denialism politically unpalatable.
I’ve spent a good amount of time posting that ACC Alarmists need proximate, severe, obvious, accurately predicted AGW-direction events to move the polloi. Otherwise they’ll just keep electing leaders based on whether or not their other more proximate interests such as unions, social security, healthcare, neato weapons and potholes are taken care of.
The notion that the polloi really want to protect future generations against a tragedy caused by current largesse extends about as far a post-documentary discussion on a polar bear’s ice floe loss. It certainly does not extend to actual sacrifice. After a good hobby worry over the situation, it’s back to real tragedies, such as still needing a new purse to match one’s dress on prom night.
We are all consummate consumers, and what we intend to consume is everything that lets us live richly now. This is as true of the 99% as it is of that evil cabal of corporations and politicians catering to the 99% so that they can continue to be elected.
I’m tickled you are figuring this out, even if you are confused enough to blame the 1%, the corporations, and the “system” instead of putting the blame squarely where it actually belongs: me and Al “Strawman” Gore. (Plus you, probably, if we looked under your covers. Human nature blames the next guy over, but few of us actually escape hypocrisy.)
PS: Democracy will always fail when the public is allowed to vote themselves current largesse paid with future debtors. But it beats the alternative of hoping successive dictators will be benevolent. If there’s enough capitalism to create wealth, the timing of consequences for voting self-interest may be extended beyond to a longer time frame than more socialist systems. Some capitalist systems might be so financially successful they can even indulge in a few hobby goodwill pursuits. But what will not happen in any democratic system is a sustained mass vote for sacrifice now against some far off consequence.
Unfortunately, I’d say it’s unlikely that any public support will be broad enough to deliberately depress annual economic growth rates, period.
I don’t think the average guy living as richly as he can now will be compelled to action by the concern that in 85 years, our descendants will be 5% poorer. My grandkids are going to be a heck of alot poorer than that even without ACC amelioration, just from the reckless borrowing my generation is doing right now. We just keep making excuses about how it’s OK to borrow like mad “for now” and assume they will muddle through somehow.
Throw in wolfpup’s theory that political decisions are actually driven by a self-serving cabal of corporations and the 1% without any regard to public good, and I’d say the data above is not going to move the behavior needle, even if the climate scientists also turn out to be incredibly prescient economists as a sideline pursuit.
Sure; the longer we wait, the costlier it is predicted to be.
But not for us.
I think those numbers are so unfrightening to the average guy that he’s going to read the article and go right back to planning how to fund both his upgrade to first class air and his new golf clubs. Plus get the government to provide more services.
The actual problem is simple enough, assuming that report is 100% true. Has anyone who wrote the report reduced their fossil fuel consumption? Have the UN members limited themselves? Is anyone on the IPCC taking a sailboat the next time they want to travel half way around the world? Has everyone concerned about global warming become a vegetarian? (animal production exceeds transport in producing GhGs)
Are you eating locally? Organic only? Growing your own food? (at least a little herb garden on the window sill). Do you walk, bike or car share/public transport when you travel?
Have you shut off your electric, and use only solar and wind power? This winter, will you heat only with renewable energy?
Has anyone? Is there even a single test area where anyone is trying to live a reduced fossil fuel lifestyle? (aside from the majority of the undeveloped third world)
Has a single concerned scientists, or his family, even begun to live like they insist we must do? Or is it all hand waving and hand wringing and “you people need to do something”?
A little bit more on why that point from FX is made as a distraction, when the issue of acid rain came the solution was not to demand the people to change first, that is because it was mostly industry and energy producers (as in this case) the ones that are the worst and more important offenders.
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) in fuels for vehicles and coal that power plants use are the main reason for the acid rain, and the successful control of the emission of those compounds did not require us to do sacrifices ahead of time, the solution involved the removal of those compounds before using them or by capturing the emitted materials.
The sacrifice for all does come by paying a slight increase in our energy costs after solutions like cap-n-trade or emissions taxes were imposed.
