Fox News: Four Dirty Secrets about Clean Energy
Apparently, the Fox News article “Four Dirty Secrets about Clean Energy” is going viral, as I just got it from a friend who is normally not too closely connected to the subject. I have to hand it to these guys; they’re sure good at getting their word out.
In addition to admiring the sheer aggression with which Fox promotes its beliefs, one has to like their cleverness as well. Even the ploy of referring to their enemies’ concepts as “Dirty Secrets,” implying as it does the existence of some clandestine group with a malicious, hidden agenda is really a very bright idea from a public relations perspective.
In any case, I promised my friend that I would take a few minutes and respond to each of these damnable “dirty secrets,” so here goes:
Dirty Secret #1: If “clean energy” were actually cheaper than fossil fuels, it wouldn’t need a policy.
The cost of renewable energy is anything but a secret. No one disputes that, in each of its many forms as they currently exist, clean energy is more expensive than coal – especially when it’s burned in the absence of scrubbers on the plants to remove the most damaging components of their emissions. And, though the prices of renewables are falling constantly, this inequality will remain in place for at least the next few years. The larger issue that the author elected not to discuss, of course, is that fossil fuels come with huge but generally ignored costs in terms of the health of our people, our society and our environment.
Dirty Secret #2: Clean energy advocates want to force us to use solar, wind, and biofuels, even though there is no evidence these can power modern civilization.
This ties into #1 above. No one who has seriously looked at the matter doubts that clean energy can power the civilization, but the issue is cost. As Dr. Peter Lilienthal, world energy expert whose software is used by power utilities in more than 80 countries says, “There’s plenty of clean energy, if you don’t care what you pay for it.” Most clean energy advocates suggest weaning ourselves off fossil fuels using the market forces that would be created by establishing a level playing field in which the true costs of all forms of energy are taken into consideration and “internalized.” We also hope for a bit of help from government; it would be good (as well as fair and wise) to remove the enormous subsidies bestowed upon the fossil fuel companies – and perhaps send the funds thus freed up in the direction of renewables, as the latter clearly represents a public good (as opposed to a public hazard).
Dirty Secret #3: There are promising carbon-free energy sources–hydroelectric and nuclear–but “clean energy” policies oppose them as not “green” enough.
Let’s start here by being honest: Fox News has heretofore expressed identically zero concern about carbon. In any case, it’s true that most clean energy advocates see obvious and serious dangers in nuclear power. I’m not sure what planet someone would have to be living on not to share these concerns. It’s also important to note that all sincere and objective environmentalists very much eagerly look forward to the commercialization of “advanced nuclear,” i.e., the next generation that can potentially operate safely and inexpensively.
Dirty Secret #4: The environmentalists behind clean energy policy are anti-energy.
It is true that there are environmental extremists who are unwilling to make any compromises, and thus become de facto advocates for the end of economic prosperity, a return to an agrarian society, etc. Pointing to a few people with fringe views may stir up the passions of a largely uninformed audience, but it’s hardly to the point. I’m sure you could find a few who believe in astrology as well, though I can’t see the relevance of that either.
The vast majority of clean energy advocates are honestly looking for trade-offs that make sense. In fact, we don’t see this issue as “us vs. them,” as all seven billion of us live on the same sick planet. Our main agenda is doing what’s right for this sorry world; I’m not sure Fox News can say the same.
Again, I congratulate Fox on its cleverness, even though its command of the facts and the intellectual honesty it displays in dealing with them are dubious at best.
Hi Craig! Thank you for your reply! I am very impressed by your dedication to the clean energy cause. I’m also very impressed by what a good writer you have become. No kidding! Keep up the good work.
I’m going to the PC graduation today. I’ve gone for the past 8 years. I enjoy the nostalgia of the event.
Warmest regards,
Rick
Thanks for the kind words. If I lived back your way, I’d go to those events myself.
Hi good work
1. Fossil fuels and the corporations who make money off of them, receive and have received hundreds of billions of dollars in; subsidies, reduced regulations that are costly, huge tax breaks and lower and lower tax rates…The amount of aid and legislated graft is unbelievable…follow the money… The Iraqi war which ran into trillions opened up the oil for 5 large. mega contractors…1 Chinese company and 4 international conglomerates. The American people are paying and will pay this bill…one of the largest subsidies to the fossil fuel business ever… Our military is essentially keeping the Markets open, and controlled by these corporations…The oil was probably the only thing that really got liberated…follow the money…The Patriot Act and loose fracking regulations and exemption from the Clean Water Act is a multi billion
dollar subsidy…I can go on…but you get the point…
Craig. Just curious. Do you have ANY idea where the author Alex Epstein snatched this item under Dirty Little Secret #1?
[snip]
Solar and wind are the ones given an unfair advantage; per unit of energy produced, they already receive 90X more subsidies than oil and gas. And they have been subsidized for decades.
I personally think this ’90X’ should be challenged, and have contacted this Mr. Epstein via email to challenge this assertion of his. I located his contact information here, in case anyone else in this forum wants to take him to task and dispel many of the myths he’s cited in this read.
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=media_AlexEpstein
E-mail: aepstein@aynrand.org
Office: 949-421-8867
Media inquiries: 202-609-7470
Facebook: facebook.com/thepursuitofenergy
No, I have no idea, and I agree with what you’ve written here.
Good stuff, Craig, but you didn’t really address the thrust of Dirty Secret #2: “force us to use solar…” etc. This is part of the right-wing Tea Party mantra that socialists are taking over the government and denying us our liberties by forcing things on us like a health care mandate. So in that paranoid worldview, renewables are being forced on us, and I suppose a renewable portfolio standard is seen as “forcing” utilities to derive some of their power from renewables. But it certainly isn’t forcing any individual or business or institution to adopt renewables. And of course, every law or regulation of any kind forces people to do or not do something, like pay taxes and not commit murder.
Good point. I thought of challenging the idea of “forcing” the world, but decided to leave it out for brevity’s sake. Again, this is an excellent point.
The Facts are seldom complete. Solcialise the losses and overhead intrinsic in the conventional fossil fuel industry and privitise the gains. What we need is to nationalise the resource in OUR country. The Coal is our national resource as is the fossil fuel in NG and Oil. We a s a Country own the Raw materials under each State. A fair and equitable cost in that resource needs to be paid directly to the Givernment. When seen in context the European nations reciev a greater percentage of the Profit from those resources. We hand out virtually FREE Leases to the Old boy network. The degredation from Nuclear Castrophies are physical and economic. In Vermont we are closing down and aging leaky reactor run by greedy liars who deny buried pipes because they are leaking only to discover that they knew and covered it up!
The reality is the Liability and lask there of is the issue. One cannot file a Lawsuit against the Nuclear industry for runing the economy. What value is Butter Cheese and Ice Cream when we have a NUCLEAR LEAK! there is no market for Nuclear coffee or Nuclear snowboards. We would be fully screwed by the perception of Nuclear contamination alone. The financial impact is equally part of the Nuclear Legacy. The amount of spent and casked Nuclear fuel on the Conneticut River is greater thanthe Japanese Facility. The Volume and the complete lack of facility to remediate and process that spent Fuel is a socialised cost along with the clean up.
I know quite a few conservative people, myself being one of them, that view the anti-green, anti-electric car rhetoric for what it is – a play on their emotions to ensure continued support for fossil fuel subsidies. Most common sense people I know are for exploring an array of energy sources so that we work to achieve energy independence and economic prosperity.
Just because you are a Fox fan, and think most democrats or the current administrations ideas are hurting the county, does not make you a complete idiot. I have solar – and will be buying/leasing either the Volt or Ford Focus EV as soon as I can. I know several people who might grumble over Obama’s latest plan, but are actively looking at the costs of solar and will be installing as soon as the numbers make sense.
There are some that think because we listen to Fox News we agree with the views of people like Rush all the time. Not true, talk radio can provoke thought – but it cannot make you stupid. But along those lines; I do not believe the left would rather buy oil from Hugo Chavez and Saudi Arabia then to explore and tap domestic supplies of oil, gas, and coal.
I was told by a local conservative radio personality that his issue with electric cars is that he does not like the idea of the government ramming them down our throat. I am not sure where that even comes from, but seeing as most dealerships are having a hard time just getting an EV to demo, never mind to sell to the people like me that have been waiting 3 years, I do not think he has anything to worry about.
Fox News online is my home page, but I keep no secret of my plans to power my EV completely from my rooftop solar array. For me is not about being for alternative energy or against the fossil fuel companies; it is about common sense. Google for the countries at the top of the list for alternative energy plans in the near future – Saudi Arabia. They are banking on enough westerners that are against EV’s for any reason, and enough opposition to production in our own back yard, to sell us oil well after they themselves no longer require it as an energy source.
There are plenty of conservative thinkers out there that refuse to blindly listen to, and support wrongheaded ideas just so a few rich people get richer at the expense of our lifestyle. Those people are pushing for both oil and gas production domestically as well as all forms of alternative energy – and a good many of them are of the hard working, do for yourself without handouts, and get ahead types that are also in line for an EV.
Thanks, Craig, for continuing to bring important news and developments to those who care deeply about energy and climate. In this case, you’re right that a big part of the reason this article has received so much attention was its clever title. I think there are other reasons too. It contains a lot of reasonably valid information and was clearly written by someone with some expertise. It’s not so full of nonsense, distortions, and dogma as to be unreadable by informed opponents. And some of its points are not often given much air time, but are shared by people of passion from the other side. For example, we really should not wish that the 5 billion poor people in this world should have little hope of ever enjoying something close to the lifestyle we’ve enjoyed – and that will require access to cheap, abundant, energy.
I would also say that this article does not contain more half-truths and distortions than what have usually been seen in the writings of at least one of those this author particularly despises – Amory Lovins.
This article may provide a good opportunity for more sound and truly “fair and balanced” discussions, as you have been striving for.
And by the way, your recent renewable energy survey and analysis thereof was absolutely super. Keep up the great work.
Excellent points — and glad you liked the report. I’m going to try to make this a monthly project; I’m on a quest to understand these issues, and I think public perception is an important ingredient in that.
In order to reverse climate change completely without doing anything else, we’d have to revert to a non-agrarian culture. That’s not an answer. I believe something will happen because of what we are doing that will reduce human population drastically. It may be viral, it may be a bacteria (or several), or it may be a combination of insufficient food and/or water combined with a viral or bacterial attack, or maybe even an attack of CO2 on coastal cities. At that point we will need to not try to repopulate the planet as it is now, and we’ll be able to institute the necessary modifications in energy production that are being talked about now, but we won’t need as much energy since there will be fewer people to provide for. (If we get down to a billion or less, that would be a good number.) We will also replant the world’s forests over much of the planet. It will be our third golden age. I’m only sorry that probably I won’t be alive then, but my soul’s descendent will be because I have seen this future in a vision.
Interesting solar cost comparisions:
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/06/10/solar-power-graphs-to-make-you-smile/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29&utm_content=Yahoo%21+Mail
http://www.dmsolar.com/12grsoposype1.html
The urgency of developing renewable energy technology.
The world is facing a very serious situation that has nothing to do with politics, but with survival, if we look at the facts of science.
We are going to consider a vehicle that has a 20 gallon tank.
For each tank of gasoline (or diesel oil) that is been burnt, steam and carbon dioxide are produced, approximately, in the following quantities:
Steam (as water): 20 gallons
Carbon dioxide (CO2): 380 pounds
Therefore, for each million cars burning just one tank of fuel, we have:
Steam (as water): 20 million gallons
Carbon dioxide (CO2): 380 million pounds
Both products accumulate in the atmosphere (part of the CO2 comes down with rain).
The steam condenses in the clouds as water, and later falls as rain
The accumulation of carbon dioxide contributes to global warming, henceforth, to the melting of the ice at the poles.
Looking at the figures above, it is not hard to understand why each day the floods are worse.
Today we are saving in the price of energy, but tomorrow we will pay with material destruction and the loss of lives. Something has to be done.
Earlier visits to this site had me thinking there might be a possibility of balanced debate on renewables here, but this post managed to destroy any such hope.
The post on the Fox News site is not an “article” in the old-journalism sense, but rather, it is clearly labeled “OPINION” at the top of the page, was written by a third-party not employed at Fox, and the author’s affiliation is clearly disclosed at the bottom of the entry.
Articles promoted as factual news, written by renewable activists rarely provide similar levels of disclosure.
While reflexive Fox-bashing may play well in far-left precincts, you’ve clearly “shot the messenger” here because you disagree with the opinion being advanced; and by doing so, you appear to be advocating the stifling of genuine debate.
Go ahead and tear apart the opposing author’s opinion with your own beliefs, or better yet, facts, but don’t destroy your credibility with ad hominem attacks on Fox, just because they are one of very few mass media outlets that offer a forum to opposing opinions.
That said, I’ll renew my earlier advice regarding putting some serious effort into quantifying actual direct subsides to all modes of energy.
I’ve done just that.
After hearing the latest Congressional nonsense about oil subsidies, I did the research and found only one, and that oil “subsidy” getting all the attention is not a subsidy at all, but rather a tax deduction for legitimate operating expenses.
The specific deduction is related to what have been deemed “intangible” drilling costs that are not at all intangible, but rather, actual out of pocket cash expenses, equivalent to what would be considered “relocation expenses” in any other industry.
If you were to relocate your office across the country, the cost of the rental truck, fuel, meals, labor and similar expenses are fully deductible in the year they were incurred. The income you lost while moving cannot be immediately expensed, because it’s intangible, but can be added to the cost of your new office and deducted in the form of depreciation over several years (generally speaking, consult your tax professional).
The important fact here is that you’ve recovered the same amount of money, the only difference is whether you deducted 100% of the expenses in one year, or 10% per year over 10 years.
All that’s been done with this imaginary subsidy is that the feds uniquely penalized the oil industry by declaring an expensable cost to be a capital (depreciation) cost, and then the feds turn around and benevolently “allow” the oil companies to take what should have been an expensable cost as an expensable cost.
The key bit here is that there’s no difference in the amount deducted, just the time period over which it’s deducted, so it’s barely a tax “break,” it’s not a tax break that uniquely or inordinately benefits the oil industry, and it’s certainly not a subsidy where the gov’t is providing a direct cash grant, as is the case in many renewable energy projects.
As for direct cash payments, the oil industry does pay the gov’t lease fees for access to any public land, and royalties for any oil extracted from those lands. Are any of the renewable companies making lease or royalty payments to the gov’t?
I challenge anybody else to identify and explain any other oil-specific direct cash subsidy. There may be some, but general accusations that they exist do not constitute proof.
I’ll even go so far as to suggest that there are more than likely a few small, arcane oil subsidies out there, but again, the only one that anybody can cite when pressed is the so-called tax break.
NOTE: Before anybody tries, the defense budget doesn’t count as an oil subsidy, as we’re not getting any oil out of Japan, Western Europe, Korea, Kosovo or Afghanistan, we’re not getting much out of Viet Nam, and we’ve yet to get much out of Iraq. The war-for-oil bit is a childish canard, please leave it where it belongs in the world of academic fantasy.
Do the work, prove me wrong on oil subsidies, and then let’s talk about the direct cash subsidies for renewables.
Personally, I’m an “all of the above” kind of guy when it comes to energy sources. I’m not against renewables, but I have no tolerance for ignorance or BS. I operate in the world where business has to contend with reality, not academic fantasy.
Dear Junk science skeptic, very well written, I have an alternative energy biz yet am not a liberal. Company motto is “Conserving today for our children’s tomorrow.”. Your last sentence does a great job of echoing my own sentiments.
Cheers
Roy
@ Junk Science Skeptic
Well said, very well said indeed !
For the past month or more I have been reading items on your forum and with growing concern. Would it be too strong to say that ‘alternative’ energy is embraced with some naivety? Or perhaps anything related to wind or solar power is green. Because I cringe at turning on an engine doesn’t mean I have to unquestioningly ignore the substantial damage to the environment made by the alternatives. Earlier this week I filed an environmental objection to the application of a wind power company to destroy the habitat of a rare turtle and a bird species on an endangered listing so wind towers could be put up on land held as a nature reserve, and on a major bird fly way. What is the impact of wind generators at different densities on flora and fauna, on aquifers, on weather patterns as thousands of these 50 story structures are added? Who will pay for the decomissioning of these towers after their 20 year life span ends? What of the permanent loss of farmland to infrastructure–1000 ton bases, roads and buildings, transmission lines where forests have been clearcut? Note that the only studies on things like turbulence and desertification, or the direct impact on human health seem to have come from the wind power industry. That resembles a government telling the pharmeuctical companies to test and release their own drugs.
In conclusion it is my conviction that we need to clean up our act if indeed we still have time but not with just any color of green. I might still get off the grid but not while attached to a transmission line. If every building generated its own power, recyled its own heat and water, imagine the employment created and the environmental awareness as homeowners watched their supply levels. All this without a landscape turned into a industrial wastescape.
Can solar power 90% of today’s planetary civilization? It would take some 50,000 square miles of ~15% solar conversion devises (like PV) for solar just to power the USA alone. That would create a lot of jobs (for storage too since about 3/4ths of that massive amount of land space is needed just to make up for its ~25% capacity).
I finally did more research and realized that the cheapest (installed) solar is still above $3 per watt. Robotic factories are already being used too, which means costs can not come down much further because the balance of system is now actually more than the cells themselves!
So, to power the world, we need to up the anti by a factor of four, to make up for lost capacity (sun and clouds). Sooo, how much does storage cost? Some grid storage “solutions” are like 1,000 per kWh! I was hopeful and thought more like $250/kWh. If we have to store 3/4ths of 1/365th of 143,000 terrawatt hours (equivalent total global usage per year) , shees, at $250/kWh, that’s only about 70 trillion!
But wait, almost two thirds of the total is wasted as heat in the various different conversion processes So I will multiply by 0.4.
Uh, shuks, I forgot to add in the developing countries, you see, the USA uses 1/4 of worlds energy, yet population is less than 1/20th, thus we need FIVE times this total global energy usage, just to be fair (and that’s not counting growth)!
So, at $3 per watt, that’s about 75 trillion (X 5 without growth) and for storage, which 3/4ths of that is needed for, is about another 30 trillion (x 5 without growth). Oh, and if we don’t incure much higher structural parts costs due to the needed million or so square miles of solar coverage…
Ok, some will insist that “we do it!”…
I will insist on the molten salt reactor, especially the one that can fission thorium in an efficient and proliferation resistant manner.
It is NOTHING like conventional pressurised water reactors that can melt down and cause nasty problems.
the Liquid fluoride thorium reactor can NOT melt down, only spits out a small percentage of nasty wastes, and because they are so efficient, the wastes decay back down to safe as lead levels in about 300 – 400 years (which is WAY doable unlike the 100,000 years Yucca Mountain would “have to be designed for” which is WAY undoable!).
@ fireofenergy
Thank you for a great post. Japanese scientist and engineers are well advanced with plans to build miniaturized Thorium generators designed to be sited underground,earthquake proof, and needing very little maintenance. Locating these generators very close to the high usage areas reduces the cost and losses involved in transmission.
This is the way of the future.
To the short sighted…
You can take a sharp stick and gouge your eyes our for free, or get a pair of glasses.
I prefer the seeing.
Fight the fight Craig. Thank you.
Craig, as usual, I must congratulate you on creating a debate!
During the part of the year I live in Australia, I receive your forum some hours later than the northern hemisphere and as a result I am able to peruse most of the posts before posting myself! The disadvantage of this is most of the issues have been covered by other contributors.
However, at the risk of being repetitive, Fox news is not a traditional ‘News’ service in the style of BBC etc. Instead it presents a ‘tabloid’ or ‘magazine’ format with commentary from both in-house and third party sources. Fox lacks the resources (and inclination) to provide impartial, objective, reportage. Fox is a commentator on other media stories.
The Fox News article “Four Dirty Secrets about Clean Energy” is no different than the usual sensationalist tabloid headline, or such programmes a ‘A Current Affair’ etc.
But the content can’t be dismissed, simply because it opposes to the more extravagant claims made by environmentalist and leftist propaganda. Witness the responses received on this forum calling for ‘nationalisation’ of resources etc.
Graig, you have every right to decry the antics of Rightist, or troglodyte commentators! But if you wish to be considered balanced or even rational, you must also decry the falsehoods and propaganda of the environmentalist left.
Plug-in Electric Road transport will prevail because of the economic viability of EV technology to provide convenience with the minimum of disruption. FCV technology is doomed to irrelevance unless a major technical breakthrough can be achieved very rapidly. The success of EV technology is not dependant on a response to climate change, or other environmental concerns, but the demise of economic oil through depletion.
The truth is not hard to grasp. The planets economy, civilisation and increased population was created by the availability of economical, plentiful and convenient energy, during the Age of Oil. The pending demise of cheap oil, has led to a search for replacement energy sources. The energy replacement will hopefully be non-pollutant, but more importantly economically reliable.
Bio-fuels have proven inadequate, except in niche areas.
Solar has displayed no capacity except as an expensive fringe player. Wind power falls into the same category. If Coal ,(and natural gas) are politically unacceptable as power sources, then only two technologies remain:
Nuclear, and Geo-thermal! Nuclear is a proven technology, capable of powering the industrialised world. Although nuclear has drawbacks, what other alternative is there except Coal and Natural Gas, both finite?
Geo-thermal is a very immature, but very promising technology. Oddly, the only major investor in Geo-thermal is Chevron oil.
Graig, when the political philosophy and hyperbole, is removed from the energy debate, it becomes a simple economic and practical equation. It is not a question of how to survive in a post-oil world, but which technology can replace fossil fuel. Unrealistic,Utopian dreams offered by the socialist-left and enviro-pest fellow travellers, for inadequate technologies are just as disingenuous as any Fox article.
Hi Marcopolo;
Excellent point about geo-thermal energy potential, please note that small scale geo-thermal is viable for small office buildings, schools and homes. Conservation of energy and energy recycling tie into geo-thermal.
Chevron may be an investor for an alternative form of geothermal sometimes called “dry-well” geothermal. The system uses that natural heat found at the bottom of dry oil wells. Volcanic source geothermal uses the rankine thermodynamic cycle to produce electricity. Dry-well geothermal uses refrigeration cycles to produce electricity.
@ Junksciencesceptic. I found your post extremely interesting and well thought out!
Some of the issues you raise are very valid, and I wonder if you would mind if I cited some of your thoughts, on ther forums?
Please do.
Sorry, Craig, I often quote you! But this time I was really asking, JSS, to repeat his insights?
Of course, I am not against solar, just (as I hastily explained) that only it would take orders of magnitude more materials to
“make” a diffuse source do what a source 1,000,000 times as powerful than coal can do… which is to power a planetary
civilization that is just now becoming spoiled (and I don’t blame them because they, the developing BILLIONS see that “we did it
already”).
Now, I try to conserve, but still have to drive the old inefficient “thing” around because times are too tough (for me, anyways)
to be able to afford that electric family wagon. I didn’t know that we weren’t supposed to have kids because I wasn’t at the
time, self taught to “go green”. I am really infuriated that the powers that be will not allow that kind of solar thing I was
talking about just earlier to be made for 1/10th the price, somehow.
I don’t believe in subsidizing past a certain limit, you know, like if it costs everyone only a few hundred dollars (in their
lifetime) just so “some” can enjoy the benefits of solar, that should be MANDATORY, because there is then hope of it becoming
cheaper…NBD! But what if the price only came down by a factor of 2 or 3, and what if storage did not come down to like only
$50 per kWh? Then it was all just for the thrill of it (as, I like my solar grid replacement lights that I also hastily put
together). But seriously, we all can’t subsidize “everyone”. The only way is in robotic and vertically integrated companies
“that do it all” without all the profitmen! Likewise for ALL aspects of RE if it is to actually replace FF’s.
I want (we all want) total planetary, like 10,000,000,000 people type clean energy! And I EXPECT EVERYONE TO PARTICIPATE and
figure it out without leaving a single fact (and the understandings of all clean energy fictions, too) left overlooked. (That
way, I can learn more to).
In the meantime, people ought to require PV on all new houses. But that will only stave off global warming by a few percent,
even though, it would also help to convince other countries to do the same (and bring prices down a bit further!). Problem
though (as I see at most RE sites) people tend to become biased towards their pet peeve (as I did too).
Enough with this “It’s all RE … or it’s nothing” mentality, because in the real world, we need to overcome:
1; Global warming (CO2 is an infrared absorber and the count is still accelerating).
2; Costs issues (It’s not that times ain’t just tough for a few, it’s about getting clean energy that is affordable and
predictable enough for the investors).
3; Fossil fueled depletion (but that’s already obvious, even though the fossil fueled industries can dig up about twice, still,
for a higher price, than humanity already has converted over… look up tar sands and shale oil, it’s literally everywhere, and
at an even higher carbon footprint!).
4; Overcome the fear of potential planetary energy sources that are quite unlimited in their ability to overcome physical size
and costs restrictions (due to their much higher energy densities).
5; To overcome the confusion that allows “conventional nuclear” to even be considered (yes, ban the light water reactor because it has the tendency to convert water into explosive hydrogen when solar flares knock out the grid for sustained periods of time, has the nasty reputation of being soooo very inefficient and thus spits out long, long lived actinides which confuse the media into thinking “All nuclear is that way”, requires burdomsom strength and size requirements just to overcome the physical ineloquence of pressurising water, and which does not have passive shut down ability!).
To that end, I will advocate the “best” that I have found… and, unfortunately, it appears that diffuse energy sources will not
compete on an even and fair cost basis as the God given, well, actually “supernovae given” (from our points of views) heavy
elements.
It is up to us to OVERCOME FOSSIL FUELS properly because the world is quite literally going to decay into chaos otherwise!
And 6; Somehow learn to use these computers to overcome politicians that do not put clean and safe energy as a top priority next
to re-creating an industrialism needed to do so! They have to be taught ALL the safe clean energy options, what risks are
involved, what costs per watt, raw materials supply issues on the terrawatt level, will it melt down, will it pave over deserts,
etc.
They also need to be FORCED into creating what ever trade tariffs and factory incentives needed to make this country a great place to work again, or else the dollar will turn into an IMF unit (sad but true).
Thanks for reading…
Robert Bernal aka fireofenergy (signing off for a while now).
Sorry, I edited in notepad and then pasted… appearance, yikes!
Edit:
4; Overcome the fear of potential planetary energy sources that are quite unlimited in their ability to overcome physical size and costs restrictions (due to their much higher energy densities).
Search LFTR molten salt reactor and ORNL
You will be shocked!
Hi Craig. Traditional energy (fossil fuels) are well funded and well organized. They remind me very much of the traditional American Automotive Industry, very reluctant to change. When the Prius started getting good press after GM killed the electric car, some Auto Industry staffers took notice. A few attitudes began to change. Now I read about Porsche, Ferrari, Mercedes… building electric and hybrid cars( demonstration cars so far). It won’t be long before we have many choices of electric and hybrid vehicles from many Auto makers.
I am not sure WHEN traditional energy companies will get on board and start thinking seriously about renewable energy, but I believe the time is getting much closer. I also believe that just like the Auto Industry, the Energy Industry will see the light and will suddenly find that Renewable Energy is possible and profitable. They just need to get on board.
Until that happens we will have Faux News and other mouthpieces trying their best to discredit what they consider a threat to their way of life.
Lets hope for this to happen sooner, not later.
@napaeric, I didn’t realise it was that easy! Just “get on board’, huh!
Lets see…oh, yeah that’s the problem, get on board what? A magic carpet? This is the trouble with you members of the ‘WKTEC’ cheer squad, all conspiracy theories and fantasy, no actual practical plan of how to do anything! It may surprise your little fantasy world, but most major energy corporations, including BP and Chevron, along with automakers like Ford, Nissan, Toyota and more recently GM, have invested 10’s of billions, that’s right billions, in developing alternate energy. The European car makers and Mazda, have spent billions more trying to create viable FCV’s. But the scientific conclusions are always the same. Logistical economics bring everyone back to EV’s powered by coal and natural gas where Hydro is unavailable.
The only alternatives are improved nuclear, and geo-thermal. (although bio-diesel has a valuable niche marine market)
Dirty secret # 5…..our government lies
All these issues are solvable. There is nothing “new” under the sun. It means that debates can bring forth information that has not found the right place to express itself. Make hemp part of the solution and you’ll be surprised what “we” can create. The use of knowledge is power.
http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/conspiracy/facts/fordhemp.html
The biggest subsidy in history goes to the oil industry — the military cost of securing the US imported oil supply is well in excess of $0.5 trillion a year as given in testimony of the late Milton Capulos in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2006. This cost does not appear at the pump and is paid for by taxpayers or added to the national debt.
How many windmills and solar panels used to charge electric cars could be bought with this money — and would ithe oil savings allow us to pull out of the Middle East?
@ Dr Bob Goldschmidt. [quote]How many windmills and solar panels used to charge electric cars could be bought with this money — and would ithe oil savings allow us to pull out of the Middle East?[/unquote]
The first mistake you make, is like a lot of people you imagine the US imports all it’s oil from the middle east. In fact the largest supplier of oil to the US, is the US, followed by Canada. I’m not sure of the numbers of US troops stationed in Canada, but with only one Embassy and 9 consulates, it can’t be many marines.!
When you say, “pull out of the middle east, I presume you include Israel? Because if the US withdrew the enormous subsidies and security guarantees for Israel, and treated Israel as just another middle eastern nation, most US problems in the middle east would cease to exist and Israel would be forced to come to terms with its second class oppressed minority and neighbours.
Solar and wind power can’t replace oil. More importantly they can’t replace Coal. Only Nuclear can replace Coal. (although, as I say, Geo-thermal has potential).
Instead of just debating in this forum, we should be challenging those dispensing misinformation. I challenged Mr. Alex Epstein and he responded. As I surmised, Mr. Epstein cited his ’90x’ example from a single year (2007) from an EIA report, Energy Information Administration: Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy Markets 2007″ instead of taking into consideration the entire historical record of subsidies offered to the energy industry.
Indeed, the nature of the reads that foster misinformation and myths needs to be challenged in those respective spaces, er Fox News. I am sure much of Mr. Epstein’s audience does not question his datum by performing back of the envelope calculations or questioning his reference sources.
I asked Mr. Epstein to open his Facebook profile, to encourage a hearty debate. It remains to be seen if he will do this. http://www.facebook.com/thepursuitofenergy
I think some of Mr. Epstein’s information was cherry picked and based on distorted investment patterns of federal intervention–which I see this type of response on his part as a continuing impediment to resilient, renewable energy technology alternatives. The USA gov’t encourages proponents of failed CONG (coal oil nuclear natural gas) technologies by continuation of subsidies and rescuing their favorites even after the marketplace has all but rejected them e.g. nuclear.
Perhaps if all subsidies were removed, or were equalized, this would speed the movement toward implementing more resilient technologies i.e. hybrid renewable energy systems. Mind you, I used the adjective hybrid, because I am attuned to the notion that the next generation of energy systems will require an amalgam of renewable energy technologies to complement in the interim years, and eventually replace our current energy infrastructure. And yes, I am a proponent of hybrid renewable energy systems that are decentralized, and cited, designed and implemented based on a geographical predisposition.
I went on to share with Mr. Epstein that most recently, the Germans have been recognizing, and taking active strides to retool their dated, centralized transmission system, because they are keen to the notion it is going to be cost-prohibitive in the long run. The following information is courtesy of Mr. Hydrogen, Arno Evers.
The German electricity grid as of March 22, 2010 is an incredible 1,783,209 Kilometers (more than 1,000,000 miles) long; ~four times the distance from the Earth to the Moon. In addition, more than 550,000 transformers (substations) are needed to keep this grid-network running in order to transfer electricity from the source of production (still mostly coal-fired power plants) to the consumers in industrial, domestic and Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs).
I have not had time to locate similar stats in the USA, but I’m sure they will be equally daunting. Using ‘common sense’, surely one would have to agree this inefficient, archaic, centralized system, first established in 1891, has only been even marginally improved since its inception, and really should not further be supported by additional network expansion.
As I and a number of my colleagues in the RE sector concur, one of the major ‘flaws’ of our current energy infrastructure among other things, is the fact that electricity from renewable energies in the electricity industry has always been treated like electricity from normal power plants by feeding it into the inefficient grid. This has always made little or no sense physically. Also, the so-called smart network doesn’t really help. We need many more intelligent solutions.
This sort of dis-information has some very real fall-out for the Green Energy business sector. In short by under cutting the viability of Green Energy, it delays the acceptance of proven Green Energy Technologies in the finance community. Finance people NEED confidence that new technologies will work …. no confidence, no financing.
This lack of confidence is especially evident in the energy efficiency sector, where good programs have trouble getting financed because there is a “confidence hurdle” in the way
@Don Madden. The reason that caution is starting to be exercised in financing ‘Green Energy’ projects is because too much money has been invested by both the government and private sector, with idealistic projects that have proved to be unworkable. Had proper due diligence been completed before funds were advanced, most these project would have never got to start-up stage.
The problem is separating moral and philosophic desire from actual reality. Investing in technology is a highly specialised business.
Confidence is not the problem, a realistic dispassionate assessment is usually lacking and boundless enthusiasm will not rescue a defective design only drive the ship more firmly on the rocks.
Craig:
I originally welcomed your input when you started your newsletter but lately I can find more conservative view point from MNSBC. As I have stated to you before, I am a fiscal conservative but a clean energy advocate who puts our thoughts to action and as a company we develop clean energy, or attempt to if we could only get some of the “clean energy” organizations to stop putting road blocks in our way. Examples, California will not buy Midwestern developed ethanol because the corn based ethanol is in competition for land in some jungle in the Amazon and therefore it will cause that jungle to be developed for farm land. So California promotes the purchase of ethanol from Brazil. Let me see, deprive farmers and workers in Midwestern of an income and jobs and send our foreign exchange to Brazil. I suggest a basic course in economics for the California regulators. Second, to convert a coal fired power plant to wood will cause dust from all of the trucks hauling wood and it will affect the habit of some unknown small barely seen creature when the wood to cut down for a feedstock. Tell that to the citizens of Arizona and New Mexico who had to leave their homes due to our “clean energy” organizations preventing the cleaning of the underbrush.
Next, solar and wind are great. We are attempting to obtain the permits to install a small (50 MW) wind farm. But, then that will require that the “mean old money grubbing” coal fired power plant must maintain a “spinning reserve” to take over when the wind stops. The same applies when clouds obstruct the suns energy on the solar panels. Plus, that old dirty coal fired power plant will be required to go on line after sun sets as we do not currently have a proven (translate economic) method of storing wind or solar energy to provide power after dark or when that wind stops.
Your site seems to promote only solar and wind. We have many other clean energy systems that need to promoted. Hydro, waste to fuel, anaerobic digestion of waste food, animal waste, crop waste, etc. Some you see but the others are not as glamorous as solar and wind. Just ugly ducklings but still produce energy. Electric autos have limited range, excessively long recharge and limited recharge facilities. Until that is corrected, they will be limited to short travels. FED X is buying electric delivery trucks for large metropolitan cities where their travel is under 100 miles and they can recharge back in the garage at night. This will help advance electric travel but it will not occur until we have better batteries and more efficient motors.
Your site turns me off when I see some response from a reader about some “tea party mantra”, “military industrial complex”, etc. You and they need to face up to reality, small companies develop the jobs and developments, large companies develop the policy and then buy the small companies. If you are the President of the US, you go to GE for policy, you don’t go to a company with 50 employees. Your readers complain about oil companies. I suggest you and they review some of the oil companies investment such as Valero, I believe they are not the fourth largest developer of Ethanol, are investing in Algae technology as well as anaerobic digesters. So they are forward thinkers who know that new technologies need to be promoted. I hope some of your complaining readers think about investing in a similar company who is investing in clean energy!
My college statistics professor would always greet the class with the following” “Figures never lie but liars can figure”. Some of your readers statistics seem of follow that as Solar and Wind are not as cheap today as many would like us to believe.
You have a great site when you discuss jobs and the legal aspects of clean energy. When you go off on the other topics, I wish you would just cancel my subscription so I don’t waste my time reading the same information I could see on MSNBC or Al Gore’s press releases.
Don
Donald, although I agree with much of what you say, Craig presents a wide range of veiws. Some of his opinions, may not be to my taste, but not every issue is balck and white. Many of the more radical ideas have some merit. Many of these concepts if taken and polished, (maybe modified to be more practical) provide creative solutions.
If I was allowed to add to the answers to the “dirty secrets” I would mention for a secret #1 that in many, many countries the governments keep subsidizing the traditional (read, mostly carbon burned) generation, sometimes directly, sometimes – not. In total it was around $315 bln. in 2009 according to IEA. And many of these governments decide to keep this subsidizing system not to loose voters and create another system of subsidises close by, now – for RES. This is more than fare. Though it does not hide the fact that some of the RES-E technologies are more expensive than some of the traditional ones.
In 2006 there where an US Senate Investigation of the Oil consolidation mergers which predates the Sherman Anti-Trust laws of this country regarding the market impact effects of the Standard Oil Trust under JD Rockefeller the results of an monopoly impact effects upon the so-called free markets place mirrors the same in to days economic markets.
And now the overturning of Glass Seaguall Act these laws where sophisticated in design to prevent expansion of the existences of an global corporation efforts to control the global markets and to protect the America public which is the consumer markets from an monopoly and make criminal any corporations efforts to manipulate the markets of United States sovereignty .
It is written by definition they say “that we do not know what new forms of technology would have been enter or allowed to exist within the global markets if it had not been for the efforts of these global monopolistic corporation efforts to prevent any new changes or introduction of new innovations and technologies to exist within the global markets have would resulted in direct competition with these aging out dated technology”
This process has now stagnated the economic development advancements and civilized progress dating back over an hundred years that would have address the environmental changes that are present and now called climate changes that are the direct proven results of 18th century fossil fuel technology.
Now we have an ever growing concern over the cost for which now the planet is now experiencing then ever before to our economy due to super cells storms and other normality that are the result of new methane gases release caused by BP Oil Spill and increased bio carbons within our atmospheres .
Even now those who had listen to those advocates who promoted disbelief within there media outlet are now caught victim to the reality of losing their homes and seeing the destruction of the US economy due to market manipulation at the gas pumps to the utilities bills affecting every aspect of our society .
In closing the societal infrastructure must advances from the model of an centralized electrical grid systems to an more advances de-centralized electrical grid system to address just now not only climate changes from larges forms hurricanes to tornadoes but from predicted earthquakes which common sense tells us if any one of the major electrical power plant goes down so do the whole neighborhood for its survival.
This is why alternative energy technology will gain serious importance’s within these communities toward self energy reliance the cost of not doing so would become an moral issue over profits or prophets. We must build an solar economic sanctuary by 2012 !
Where ROI is concern many needs to look again at the triple bottom -line results coming from the incentives that increase return on the investment models for commercial operations within 5 years or less see and read the following :
Modified Accelerated Cost-Recovery System (MACRS) + Bonus Depreciation (2008-2012)
12/31/2011 (100% bonus depreciation)
The federal Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, enacted in February 2008, included a 50% first-year bonus depreciation (26 USC § 168(k)) provision for eligible renewable-energy systems acquired and placed in service in 2008. This provision was extended (retroactively for the entire 2009 tax year) under the same terms by The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, enacted in February 2009. Bonus depreciation was renewed again in September 2010 (retroactively for the entire 2010 tax year) by the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (H.R. 5297).
In December 2010 the provision for bonus depreciation was amended and extended yet again by The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (H.R. 4853). Under these amendments, eligible property placed in service after September 8, 2010 and before January 1, 2012 qualifies for 100% first-year bonus depreciation. For 2012, bonus depreciation is still available, but the allowable deduction reverts from 100% to 50% of the eligible basis.
To qualify for bonus depreciation, a project must satisfy these criteria:
the property must have a recovery period of 20 years or less under normal federal tax depreciation rules;
the original use of the property must commence with the taxpayer claiming the deduction;
the property generally must have been acquired during the period from 2008 – 2012; and
the property must have been placed in service during the period from 2008 – 2012.
http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=US06F&re=1&ee=1
Strongly recommend everyone to contact your tax consultant or CPA for more details relating to Modified Accelerated Cost-Recovery System (MACRS) + Bonus Depreciation (2008-2012)
It interesting FOX News isn’t talking on this relevant important information. Here we are talking about building an economic recovery.
A colleague, a university professor in Arizons writes:
Even better, Craig, are the recent stories about data from the IEA that global energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide stalled in 2014 and better yet, preliminary IEA data point to emissions decoupling from economic growth for the first time in 40 years. This is the nail in the coffin of Fox stupidity and other sacred myths of the right, though it will take a while to filter out.
Right on.
re #3 – Look at Denmark where they are in the middle of shifting from coal-driven power plants to renewable energy primary from offshore wind power. As of now half of all electricity supplied in Copenhagen comes from renewable energy.
re #4 – Look at Sweden. They decided 10 years ago to close down all their nuclear power plant and switch over to renewable energy primary from water power and wind power.
Excellent. Sometimes my friends who aren’t following this will ask, “Hey, Craig, when do you think this shift to renewable energy that you talk so much about will happen?” I reply, “Look out your window. It’s happening right now.”
As I look at the “dirty secrets” I don’t find them particularly distressing. There seem to be a number of ways that they could be challenged. But as this post and the number of comments has demonstrated there can be lots of disagreement on the subject. Sometimes a few definitions can add a little clarification. What is “alternative,” “renewable,” “sustainable” and “green” is discussed in this article: http://www.designnews.com/author.asp?doc_id=209565 Nuclear energy would by these definitions be alternative but not renewable, sustainable or green.
Another commentor takes up the question of subsidies for oil and defines it rather narrowly as cash payments. We might take some clue from basic politics to examine all the options available for government to promote a policy. Cash payments (grants) is only one option among tax relief, tax credits, regulations, favorable contract status, infrastructure payments and support, relief from fines or leases among lots of other potential benefits.
All in all an interesting post and comments.
@ Breath on the Wind
The terms “subsidy” is generally accepted as being a taxpayer benefit or incentive unique to one sort of business or industry.
The context is to show how one industry or business has taxpayer favoured status.
“tax relief, tax credits, regulations, favorable contract status, infrastructure payments and support, relief from fines or lease” or other measures that are generally available to all industries and businesses are not considered “subsidies” in this context.
The myth keeps getting repeated, even by those who know better, that the US oil industry receives “hundreds of billions” in taxpayer subsidies, when in fact the claim is not only untrue, but made even more false since the oil industry is also the largest, and most valuable US taxpayer.
But still advocates repeat the myth …..
Hi everyone and Craig I think we must ask ourselves an honest questions such as ” DON’T SOLAR PANEL ATTRACT HEAT ON EARTH ” There were debate from scientist of funny lot to PLACE HUGE UMBRELLA LIKE OBJECT BETWEEN SUN RAYS PATH and THE EARTH TO STOP THE SUNRAYS NOT REACHING OUR EARTH I hope by JAPAN.
WHATEVER Now do solar panel and going by news solar energy tech looking making loses and here in INDIA Sunedison trying to sell its share who got the contract by offering the lowest bid now facing problems and again this news http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-16/-2-billion-loss-for-generators-as-a-million-u-s-roofs-get-solar comes as a shock
Industry warns revenue loss means unreliable electrical system
German plant closures by EON, RWE cited as reason for concern
I just wish to know Dear Craig and all friends Don’t Solar tech do a serious issues which makes our planet getting heated up ? UN CAME HEAVILY OVER ALL NATIONS HEAD TO DEAL WITH HEAT WAVES NOW IT SEEMS WE FACE MULTY LEVEL CHALLENGES Thanks god bless all.C K SWAMY P J