The fuss about clean energy

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by mcbrett, Apr 23, 2012.

  1. mcbrett

    mcbrett 2,500+ Posts

    Imagine if a few oil development companies managed to produce oil at a cost 80% less/barrel as they did about 5 years ago. It would rock the markets, cause fundamental shifts, they would be hailed as heroes, and many of their competitors around the world would suddenly become less economic. Firms associated with the low producers would benefit either from the profits or cheaper source of energy. Imagine if that caused people from clean energy to post on message boards that the oil industry sucks, and their proof was the less cost effective firms- WTF?? Why go all aggie on solar?? Obsess much??

    I took a needed break from this board, and looking at the threads here I am reminded why.

    1) Why is a technology discussion posted on West Mall, because it is scary or something to political sects?

    2) If your angle is the subsidy, why is the support of solar or wind unique from the support the US Govt has given to many other uneconomical areas, littered with hundreds if not thousands of failures and successes in biomedical research, aeronautics, education, health care, housing, IT, software/hardware, military research?

    Lastly- from where most people stand we are all benefiting from the much cheaper cost of electrons from the sun, wind and many other areas. As a capitalist, I like it when cost of production comes down through innovation and competition. If America is failing, it's because we pay our workers more than Chinese workers earn, and we don't dump panels on the market below costs as they do. Despite a dishonest CEO from a well known solar company- the industry is wildly successful, growing in the US at about 30%/year and with prices 20% of what they were less than 10 years ago. To me, the programs are successful, and the discussion, if there was an intelligent one here, would be how to we spur development of cheap, domestic energy from clean sources rather than the production of said development. Lastly, remind me again why this is on West Mall and not another board where the actual product and market is discussed?

    Is it mandatory to criticize a political party when discussing energy despite bi-partisan support of this and all the other, similar programs?
     
  2. Knoxville-Horn

    Knoxville-Horn 1,000+ Posts

    I'm not completely sure what you're asking but I'll give it a shot.

    As an ardent defender of the environment, I'd absolutely love to transition from oil/coal to "green" energy. The problem is that it either doesn't work or it's extremely costly - especially given the current economic climate. You don't play around with a cost efficient model (oil & gas) when the economy sucks. It is just far too damaging to too many people.

    As far as subsidies. I've never been a big fan. Other than areas - like NASA - that are extremely large and necessarily require governmental involvement, I'd leave it to the private sector.

    If we weren't trillions in debt, I suppose I'd be a tad more open to subsidation; however, it just looks incredibly foolish right now given the economy, debt and billions thrown down the drain to companies that had extremely poor business models.
     
  3. mcbrett

    mcbrett 2,500+ Posts

    Knox-

    Appreciate your comments about subsidies. Of course you're not part of the group who posts dubious links from conspiracy theory blogs questioning science and the entire clean energy industry. I would think if others shared your views on just the subsides issue- they'd mention the support of other industries we subsidize like agriculture, NASA, health, IT etc- but they never do. Just this industry.

    In fact- every single industry, whether it was born in the private or public sector, say cell phones or Space Shuttles, the early products are completely uneconomic. So your other point about economics, while 100% correct, is also 100% typical of everything else a standard R&D program has to overcome. Why does clean energy get politicized by stupid people despite it being no different than 20 other things they use in their lives everyday, and that were also once uneconomic and subsidized by govts?

    The progress the industry has made in the past 10 years, in part due to the increased consumption thanks to programs in Spain, Germany and the US, etc- has made this industry competitive with coal within the next 4-5 years- that is an amazing accomplishment!
     
  4. Rex Kramer

    Rex Kramer 1,000+ Posts


     
  5. mojo17

    mojo17 1,000+ Posts

    Natural gas is clean and cheap..Farmers have been running pickups on propane for 40 or so years why not use natural gas.
     
  6. Bevo Incognito

    Bevo Incognito 5,000+ Posts

    Natural gas is part of the solution, no doubt. It will eventually be superceded but it's an important part of the short-term solution.


    And, actually, natural gas is NOT clean. It is cleaner, but not clean. Here's a recent journal article which finds that methane leakage greatly undercuts or eliminates entirely the climatic benefit of a switch to natural gas. The authors of "Greater Focus Needed on Methane Leakage from Natural Gas Infrastructure" conclude that "it appears that current leakage rates are higher than previously thought" and "Reductions in CH4 Leakage Are Needed to Maximize the Climate Benefits of Natural Gas."


    The Link
     
  7. mcbrett

    mcbrett 2,500+ Posts


     
  8. Uninformed

    Uninformed 5,000+ Posts

  9. ShinerTX

    ShinerTX 1,000+ Posts

    Nuclear is a good option but we have not built a plant in the U.S. in 30 years. I'd expect the permitting process to be a bear for those willing to make the investment in money and land.

    Hydroelectric energy is good but we have to build some more mountains to generate more energy from hydro.

    Solar and wind are good for generating up to 2% of your energy needs. Not much more than that.

    Coal is plentiful but our president has stated a goal of bankrupting anyone that builds a plant, so that's problematic.

    Oil is something we use at a very high rate, but we just told our friendliest ally and closest neighbor that we do not want their oil. China does though.

    Natural Gas is abundant and cheap, but we have a lot of infrastructure issues to address to be able to make better use of one of our most abundant resources. This will not be easy especially when there is no leadership on this situation from Washington.

    Corn Ethanol is one of the biggest scams in our nations' history as it takes about a gallon and a half of gas to deliver a gallon of corn ethanol. That said, Nebraska has virtually no unemployment and a lot of corn farmers are getting rich. So, that's good for them.
     
  10. Rex Kramer

    Rex Kramer 1,000+ Posts

    mcbrett, you make me laugh. I have no problem with technology. I have a problem with those who do not live in reality. An example of you not living in reality is with your ideal mix. I know it's "ideal" but it has absolutely no basis in reality in the rest of your lifetime. Furthermore, gas is extremely clean, something you and BI tend to repeatedly either ignore, gloss over, or outright disagree with. This is likely because most oil producers produce gas as well, and so you both inherently have a problem with gas, and just make **** up about how clean it's not.

    I have a problem, frankly, with you, and the manner in which you post. Not only can you not post a point without insulting those who you think disagree with your point, you're oblivious to the fact that you do so. Nobody has a problem with technology. Nobody has a problem with clean energy just because it is clean. Your entire initial post is a huge strawman.
     
  11. mcbrett

    mcbrett 2,500+ Posts

    1) Oil is generally not used for electricity production except for small plants on Islands or old ones in the NorthEast. It is less than 1% of generation. The price of oil, no matter how much we produce, is controlled by the global market, and thus the more we depend on it the less control we have over a significant part of our economy and security.

    2) Renewables are 3% today for the USA, and produce around 20% of certain parts of the country, and in other countries can produce up to 20-30% as Europe has shown. As stated earlier, diversity is very important in electricity and as good as it may be, nothing should ever dominate the generation portfolio.

    3) Coal is great if you enjoy dumping billions of tons of smut in the air and paying for increased health costs while carving up mountains to do so- and when you have cost competitive alternatives that don't require the same issues.

    4) I like nuclear, but people who live near proposed nuclear plants do not.

    5) China is aggressively seeking oil- you are correct. You forgot to mention they are also aggressively seeking nuclear, solar, wind, hydro and everything else.
     
  12. Uninformed

    Uninformed 5,000+ Posts


     
  13. GT WT

    GT WT 1,000+ Posts


     
  14. ShinerTX

    ShinerTX 1,000+ Posts

    Why are liberals such science deniers? They keep praying to the gods of solar and wind energy even though the facts show they're both black holes of money.
     
  15. mcbrett

    mcbrett 2,500+ Posts


     
  16. Uninformed

    Uninformed 5,000+ Posts


     

Share This Page