Energy Security

[Freudian_Slit]

In a more rational world, maybe we would think energy security is one issue that could unite both Republicans and Democrats. Consider, for instance, this article from MIT Technology Review.

Scientific Panel Concludes ARPA-E Is Working. Will It Matter?

As the White House aims to eliminate the moonshot energy research program, a two-year analysis from the National Academies finds it’s on track to achieve its aims.

After two years of analysis, the National Academies has concluded the Department of Energy’s moonshot clean-energy research program is on track to accomplish what it was established to do and should remain focused on supporting potentially breakthrough technologies.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/...-arpa-e-is-working-will-it-matter/?set=608100

We should be able to agree on a couple propositions.

That it is possible to transition from hydrocarbon energy in a way that doesn't increase the end price to consumers (and in fact eliminates external diseconomies, such as health costs incurred from coal-fired plants).

And that, not knowing exactly what the future of energy holds, it is reasonable to invest in a broad energy portfolio.

 

[Hashtag35]

Science? donnie don't need no stinkin science!

 

[Freudian_Slit]

Technology and scales of economy strongly favor renewable sources, and especially solar energy. I believe for this reason environmentalists should take heart in the future, so long as we're willing to invest in new energy systems.

 

[Freudian_Slit]

Technology and scales of economy strongly favor renewable sources, and especially solar energy. I believe for this reason environmentalists should take heart in the future, so long as we're willing to invest in new energy systems.

To this point exactly:

Clean Energy Is About to Become Cheaper Than Coal

The inflection point has already been reached in the West, and by 2021 solar will be cheaper than coal in China.

Donald Trump’s desire to bring coal roaring back has always faced a huge barrier in the form of an unstoppable decline in clean energy prices. But now a new report suggests that the falling costs are set to undercut coal sooner than many expected.

An analysis by Bloomberg New Energy Finance combines knowledge of planned energy projects with economic forecasting in order to predict what’s going to happen in the power sector over the coming decades. And the prediction is one of plummeting costs for renewables, with estimates suggesting that by 2040 prices will fall by 66 percent for solar, 47 percent for onshore wind, and 71 percent for offshore wind.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.te...es-are-about-to-become-cheaper-than-coal/amp/

 

[Freudian_Slit]

More good news.

Solar Power Will Kill Coal Faster Than You Think

Solar power, once so costly it only made economic sense in spaceships, is becoming cheap enough that it will push coal and even natural-gas plants out of business faster than previously forecast.

That’s the conclusion of a Bloomberg New Energy Finance outlook for how fuel and electricity markets will evolve by 2040. The research group estimated solar already rivals the cost of new coal power plants in Germany and the U.S. and by 2021 will do so in quick-growing markets such as China and India.

https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/ivDyNs7jo1rs/v2/1000x-1.png

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-15/solar-power-will-kill-coal-sooner-than-you-think

 

[Freudian_Slit]

Now is also the time to invest in fusion energy, both large scale projects and smaller startup operations. There appears to be a Moore's Law like relation for the efficiency of fusion reactors in time. The point of commercial viability seems to be around the 2030 timeframe.

https://fusionbeliever.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/capture2.png

From Scientific American:

Is Fusion Energy in Our Future?

The U.S. is grossly underinvested in energy research, says Obama's science adviser. And that includes fusion power

Linky.

 

[Conager]

To this point exactly:

Clean Energy Is About to Become Cheaper Than Coal

The inflection point has already been reached in the West, and by 2021 solar will be cheaper than coal in China.

Donald Trump’s desire to bring coal roaring back has always faced a huge barrier in the form of an unstoppable decline in clean energy prices. But now a new report suggests that the falling costs are set to undercut coal sooner than many expected.

An analysis by Bloomberg New Energy Finance combines knowledge of planned energy projects with economic forecasting in order to predict what’s going to happen in the power sector over the coming decades. And the prediction is one of plummeting costs for renewables, with estimates suggesting that by 2040 prices will fall by 66 percent for solar, 47 percent for onshore wind, and 71 percent for offshore wind.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.te...es-are-about-to-become-cheaper-than-coal/amp/

"About to be" = SWAG circa 2040.

In 23 years.

Maybe.

 

[Freudian_Slit]

"About to be" = SWAG circa 2040.

In 23 years.

Maybe.

I appreciate the bump, but 23 years is almost certainly pessimistic. Solar energy is already cheaper than coal in certain markets.

Check out this report from Science Alert:

This One Chart Shows How Solar Energy Growth Is Skyrocketing Beyond Predictions

In early 2016, the International Energy Agency (IEA) projected that, starting that year, the world would add just 50 gigawatts of added solar energy capacity per year. And in 2017, solar's growth rate would level out and start to decline.

But as one clean energy researcher points out, the IEA may have gotten it wrong about solar's potential for growth – not just this year, but every year since 2002.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DAXDEAYXgAA7up_?format=jpg

Linky.

Optimistically, the majority of our electricity will come from solar by 2050.

 

[Freudian_Slit]

A transition to 100% renewable energy is not, however, without possibly prohibitive challenges with today's technology. Much of the problem lies with grid-scale storage of electrical energy, which today's technology would be highly stressed to provide. But I take this as reason to invest in researching these technologies, and do the hard work of solving the problem.

Scientists Sharply Rebut Influential Renewable Energy Plan

Other models, including Kammen’s, do show that the U.S. can transition to nearly 100 percent zero-emissions energy technologies. But the established view among energy researchers is that it would require making use of nearly every major technology available and that the transition, particularly getting the last 20 percent or so of the way there, would be prohibitively expensive using existing technologies. One of the key missing pieces is affordable grid-scale storage that can efficiently power vast areas for extended periods when wind and solar sources aren’t available (see “Why Bad Things Happen to Clean-Energy Startups”).

Linky.

 

[Freudian_Slit]

Fighting global warming and climate change requires a broad energy portfolio

 

[Freudian_Slit]

As hinted at before, solar energy storage exceeds solar energy production, which is a problem for the grids. But investments in storage technology, just as with solar energy, has exceeded predictions. California's has been an almost unqualified success story. The problem of energy storage is a good problem to have.

California is generating so much solar energy, it's paying other states to take it

The Golden State may want to consider changing its nickname to the Solar State.

According to a recent expose in the Los Angeles Times, California's solar boom is growing so fast and with such intensity that utility regulators are frequently paying neighboring states to absorb surplus production. The forces behind this baffling problem are largely due to the falling cost of solar, the state's major energy players, and the struggle to find the best way to incorporate a clean energy source that has become increasingly decentralized into the power grid.

"It's not the renewables that's the problem; it's the state's renewable policy that's the problem," Gary Ackerman, president of the Western Power Trading Forum, an association of independent power producers, told the LA Times. "We're curtailing renewable energy in the summertime months. In the spring, we have to give people money to take it off our hands."

 

[trysail]

In a more rational world, maybe we would think energy security is one issue that could unite both Republicans and Democrats...

...As the White House aims to eliminate the moonshot energy research program, a two-year analysis from the National Academies finds it’s on track to achieve its aims.

After two years of analysis, the National Academies has concluded the Department of Energy’s moonshot clean-energy research program is on track to accomplish what it was established to do and should remain focused on supporting potentially breakthrough technologies.

We should be able to agree on a couple propositions.

That it is possible to transition from hydrocarbon energy in a way that doesn't increase the end price to consumers...

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Uh, huh.

Got any more knee slappers?

Why don't you tell us all about what retail consumers pay for electricity in Germany.




​

 

[Freudian_Slit]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Uh, huh.

Got any more knee slappers?

Why don't you tell us all about what retail consumers pay for electricity in Germany.




​

Why do you assume that Germany's is the only model? In the USA we're increasing solar capacity without increasing the price of electricity in the way that is happening in Germany. The time is in sight when solar energy will be the cheapest form of energy in any market.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

It is a threat to the hegemony. Therefore - buh bye.

Has nothing to do with the merit of the effort, the scientific rationale or the validity of the research. It is economic infanticide.

 

[Ishmael]

A transition to 100% renewable energy is not, however, without possibly prohibitive challenges with today's technology. Much of the problem lies with grid-scale storage of electrical energy, which today's technology would be highly stressed to provide. But I take this as reason to invest in researching these technologies, and do the hard work of solving the problem.

Scientists Sharply Rebut Influential Renewable Energy Plan

Other models, including Kammen’s, do show that the U.S. can transition to nearly 100 percent zero-emissions energy technologies. But the established view among energy researchers is that it would require making use of nearly every major technology available and that the transition, particularly getting the last 20 percent or so of the way there, would be prohibitively expensive using existing technologies. One of the key missing pieces is affordable grid-scale storage that can efficiently power vast areas for extended periods when wind and solar sources aren’t available (see “Why Bad Things Happen to Clean-Energy Startups”).

Linky.

Zero emissions...............exactly what constitutes 'zero' emissions? That definition is important. A truly 'zero emission' system would be a closed loop system. Self-sustaining, perpetual motion if you will. Is there some radical discovery that will alter the laws of physics?

To be clear, I have no issue with 'cleaner' more efficient generation of energy. At the same time I do have a fairly good understanding of economics. While I do appreciate the potential benefits of research, I also recognize 'welfare' programs when I see them and a 'scientist full employment' program is NOT the way to go. The expectation that throwing more money at a project and expecting faster results is much akin to the notion that if one woman can have one baby in 9 months, 9 women can pop that kid out in a month. Just think of what we could do with 280 women?!!!!!

Ishmael

 

[phrodeau]

Trump can deregulate mining and tax solar to his heart's content, as far as I'm concerned. We will get rid of fossil fuel dependency eventually, and when it happens, it'll be Democrats who will get 100% of the credit for it.

 

[Que]

Trump can deregulate mining and tax solar to his heart's content, as far as I'm concerned. We will get rid of fossil fuel dependency eventually, and when it happens, it'll be Democrats who will get 100% of the credit for it.

It's glaring that the "sustainability" crowd never takes money into account. Just with our current unfunded liabilities this Country according to immutable laws of economics cannot continue in peretuity. The only point of contention is, how hard are we going to crash?

It's adorable that you think that this country, much less the Democrat Party will still exist.. when just this geographical locale, much less the world runs out of fossil fuels.

 

[toeskr]

I appreciate the bump, but 23 years is almost certainly pessimistic. Solar energy is already cheaper than coal in certain markets.

Check out this report from Science Alert:

This One Chart Shows How Solar Energy Growth Is Skyrocketing Beyond Predictions

In early 2016, the International Energy Agency (IEA) projected that, starting that year, the world would add just 50 gigawatts of added solar energy capacity per year. And in 2017, solar's growth rate would level out and start to decline.

But as one clean energy researcher points out, the IEA may have gotten it wrong about solar's potential for growth – not just this year, but every year since 2002.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DAXDEAYXgAA7up_?format=jpg

Linky.


Optimistically, the majority of our electricity will come from solar by 2050.

The spam force grows stronger and stronger, until....

Shall we say our goodbyes now or wait for a few more posts?

 

[trysail]

Renewable Energy Cost and Reliability Claims Exposed and Debunked

by Larry Hamlin

A new paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) from NOAA’s Earth System Laboratory, Boulder Colorado exposes and debunks the contrived claims of a recent renewable energy study which falsely alleged that low cost and reliable 100% renewable energy electric grids are possible...​

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/clip_image0103.jpg

​

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Zero emissions...............exactly what constitutes 'zero' emissions? That definition is important. A truly 'zero emission' system would be a closed loop system. Self-sustaining, perpetual motion if you will. Is there some radical discovery that will alter the laws of physics?

To be clear, I have no issue with 'cleaner' more efficient generation of energy. At the same time I do have a fairly good understanding of economics. While I do appreciate the potential benefits of research, I also recognize 'welfare' programs when I see them and a 'scientist full employment' program is NOT the way to go. The expectation that throwing more money at a project and expecting faster results is much akin to the notion that if one woman can have one baby in 9 months, 9 women can pop that kid out in a month. Just think of what we could do with 280 women?!!!!!

Ishmael

When we achieve the dream of "renewable" energy and it becomes the cheap alternative then people will flock to it in their selfish interest. Meanwhile, people just don't seem to get that the carbon emissions used to build and run a Tesla over the course of its lifetime exceed that of the modern V8. But the idea of an electric car makes them feel like they've scienced the shit out of the problem...

Desired political outcomes cause people to ignore Science.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

In another thread, I pointed out the negative economic consequences associated with forcing people to consume energy at a higher cost, that Science went over most people's heads too...


They think a lower standard of living is an investment in the future instead of a return to the past.

 

[JohnnySavage]

In another thread, I pointed out the negative economic consequences associated with forcing people to consume energy at a higher cost, that Science went over most people's heads too...


They think a lower standard of living is an investment in the future instead of a return to the past.

It's a shame your intellect is wasted on the unwashed masses of the GB. You should be in a position to use your big ole brain for the betterment of mankind.

 

[trysail]

South Australia Will Take Top Prize For Most Expensive Electricity From Denmark
by Joanne Nova

...South Australia will overtake Denmark as having the world’s most expensive electricity when the country’s major energy retailers jack up their prices this Saturday.

AGL, EnergyAustralia and Origin Energy will all increase their electricity prices from July 1, adding hundreds of dollars to annual household bills. Residential customers will see an average rise of 18 per cent under AGL, 19.9 per cent from EnergyAustralia, 16.1 per cent with Origin Energy. Bruce Mountain, the head of a private energy consultancy firm, said the increases would see South Australia take the lead on world power prices — but for all the wrong reasons.

“After taxes, the [typical] household in South Australia will be paying slightly more than the [typical] household in Denmark, which currently has the highest prices in the world,” Mr Mountain said.

Naturally, though both Denmark, and SA have the highest percentage of “renewable” energy in the world, this has nothing to do with them also being number one and two for Global High Cost Electricity. It’s just really bad luck that there is no country anywhere in the world which has both wind and solar and cheap electricity...​

​

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

It's a shame your intellect is wasted on the unwashed masses of the GB. You should be in a position to use your big ole brain for the betterment of mankind.

You go right ahead and keep paying top dollar Mr. Peak Earnings guy...





It proves how smart you really are.



What good is it to get to the office at 5:30 if you spend so much time on a keyboard hounding the unwashed masses of the GB?

 

[JohnnySavage]

I would never pay top dollar for anything. I'm a store-brand guy.