Some Groups Are Installing Solar, But Not Cheerfully
2GreenEnergy supporter Brian McGowan writes: Here is an interesting article. I know you are aware that the military is installing large amounts of solar. With the military installing solar at this rate, South Dakota may not have to do anything to meet the EPA mandated cuts because what the military does in their state to meet its own demand may make all the difference that is needed. Unfortunately the groups that most support the military are also the ones that deny climate change is an issue at all. Again I say, if the military gets it, why doesn’t everybody else?
You raise an interesting and important question. There are so many ironies here. One is that large groups are being pushed into renewables, and will not install one watt more than they are forced to. Sadly, many (if not most/all) of the utilities fall into this category. I met a representative of Southern California Edison at the Low Carbon Energy Investors meeting a couple of months ago, and I asked him about this: “Some people say that the utilities are not really willing partners in the path toward renewables, and that evidence of this is the fact that they protest RPSs (renewable portfolio standards), and then, when those protests fail, go on to meet the exact minimum standard. Is that true?” The guy just smiled and said, “No comment.”
Of course, all this is fairly predictable in the rapidly changing world. Renewables are bound to face attack from their natural enemies, until the tipping point is reached, which is right around the corner (as I argue in Bullish on Renewable Energy). Let’s not forget what Mahatma Gandhi reminds us: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” We’re getting close to a happy ending here.
Btw, renewable energy is not the only progressive cause that is in the process of winning. Check out this article “The Tide of History Flows Left” that includes the following:
In his landmark book, “The Better Angels of Our Nature,” Harvard University psychologist Steven Pinker concludes that all sorts of human evils — war, genocide, murder, rape, torture, dueling, wife-bashing, attacks on minorities, etc. — have faded enormously from the Western world….Pursuit of such humane goals lies at the heart of the liberal agenda.
It’s really not a bad time to be alive. You and I are on the side of the good guys, and it happens to be the side that’s winning.
Craig,
I love the tipping point reference! I used that very same term at the WEEC conference in Chicago several years ago in regards to solar. I like the inevitability of the term which is more than relevant when it comes to renewable energy sources.
At the time solar power cost had just fallen to $3.00/Watt if you installed it yourself and $6.00/Watt if installed by others. This is the cost without subsidies included.
If you make it profitable to be a renewable energy source, you will have many people follow you and and create the change needed.
In Illinois, a unlikely source of support for clean renewables comes from our Nuclear Power Plants. Excelon a large owner/operator of Nuclear is petitioning the state to incentivize nuclear power as a renewable clean power producer of electricity. As a low carbon producer of electricity and a large employer in the State of Illinois, I must say they have a point. I don’t necessarily agree with the threats to close some nuclear plants if the legislature does not provide incentives, but they are making a valid point as far as carbon free generation is condcerned.
Chris
The path to “then you win” is unfortunately torturous. Looks like the utilities will get their way in california by making people pay them to accept net metered connections. Doesn’t make sense in terms of the overall political climate here, but so goes the sine wave of wining and then losing. I already have an off grid system (grid connected) and am sorely tempted to go fully off grid just to stick it to them (which I know makes no difference). So go the emotions of our age.
However beneficial renewables will be to our United States and health and well-being for ourselves and our progeny, there is a substantial transition cost for all those firms that continue to regard these resources as competition. Their formidable lobbying power ensures that the feeble attempts to subsidize renewables will continue to be sporadic, unpredictable and anemic. We may also expect the campaign of misinformation, concealment, and discredit to endure long past the tipping point.
Let me convey both my fear and my hope on the topic of sustainability.
My fear… The elite employ shrewdly servile advisers whose strongest motivation is to protect the profitable status quo. This they will do, until what they regard as the approach of the last survivable moment.
Further, that because of that very bias, their judgment will be skewed so as to delay that decision far beyond the actual rational thresholds. Indeed, the deepest aspect of my fear is that this fatal delay may already have occurred.
My hope… A significant percentage of the people now living in every society will soon organize around truth and non-violence. These many of us will cooperate to engage in massive and widespread direct action to counter and overwhelm the forces preventing wise progress. This cooperation will persevere to evolve and implement new paradigm and a new power structure.
My fondest hope is that the resulting change will endure, for the benefit of all humankind, and for the healing of the broad web of life that will always be necessary for our existence.
Exxon-Mobil and its ilk are quite well organized, and not for altruistic public benefit. If we logical, critically thinking and imaginative humans want to see our national security and political sovereignty preserved, and if we want to defend ourselves and our posterity against the lethal ravages that fossil fuels inflict upon the biosphere and the economy, we had best get organized.
Your fear is similar to my fear. I try not to verbalize it too frequently. The likelihood is excellent that Antarctica and Greenland are already history – a good 13 meters or so. The world will be an interesting place.
Cameron,
Nice sentiments, of course a cynic might also might observe that they contain no practical value or viable alternatives except a rousing chorus of Kumbaya, but hey, ..I’m not a cynic, I look forward to your new ‘organization”. (the last one seemed to disappear with the collapse of the Berlin Wall) .
marcopolo, your preference for insult and your capacity for fallacy remain undiminished.
Cameron,
Insult ? Good heavens no ! I’m sincerely awaiting the announcement of your new “organization of Truth ” (although needing to “organize” truth sounds a little ominous) and witness the ” massive and widespread direct action over whelming etc ” ,( I’m not sure what this means).
Do you envisage yourself a figure styled after Lenin (or at least his statues) making grand, speeches with banners flying as your storm the Winter Palace ? Or maybe, you prefer a gentler Dylanesque or Woodstock type revolution ? Can you sing? (personally, I liked Phil Orchs and Buffalo Springfield ).
Anyway, it all sound very exciting ! I can’t wait to see the advent of your ” implementation of a new paradigm and a new power structure. ( you haven’t provided any details about how this all works, but hey…sentiments like “benefit of all humankind” , ” healing ” “altruistic public benefit” all sound pretty cool, and nicely vague.)
Why would you consider my comment insulting ? Where is the fallacy ? I’m only taking you at your word ?
As I say, a cynic might consider your vision delusional nonsense, but not me !
A cynic might ask you how you intend to maintain prosperity, national sovereignty, national security etc, while castigating and vilifying the corporations that provide all three to USA. Since oil, and oil products are absolutely essential to the every sector of the US economy, and the largest taxpayers, also an important part of the US export trade, your vilification of these corporations, would appear to be pointless.
Hmmm…..a cynic might suspect that your agenda has more in common with Lenin after all. Do you envisage a nationalization of Exxon-Mobil ? Not actually possible, and “nationalized ‘ oil companies have even more appalling environmental histories.
But hey,…. as I say, I’m not a cynic ! If you can bring back the spirit of the summer of ’67, I’ll be there,……….
marcopolo, in addition to your preference for insult and your capacity for fallacy, thank you for also grandly illustrating for readers your predilection for sarcasm, as well as including a lovely example of one of your many straw-man defenses.
Well, I’m sorry that your hopes of leading a movement of Woodstock size proportions, seems to have downsized to a hosting a vegan Pete Seegar tribute band in your back yard.
Surely you realize that by making grandiloquent pronouncements, you must attract a certain amount of gentle fun poked at your expense ?
Well, you’ve certainly amused me.
Well, then that’s great, all’s well, that ends well…
Craig,
The science of Energy technology is not ”faith” based ! There are no morally ” good ” or ” bad” technologies. There are only efficient or inefficient technologies.
Coal was an efficient technology to produce energy, until disposal of it’s waste products became appearent. The cost of dealing with the waste and difficulty of extraction has slowly rendered coal less economic.
The recent development and abundance of Natural Gas extraction technology further rendered coal less economically viable. This is an age old example of a more efficient technology replacing a less economic technology.
No technology can expect to remain viable forever at the taxpayers expense, while they remain noncompetitive.
It’s also hypocritical for some American’s to smugly claim a moral victory for less US emissions, while increasing the national debt and exporting emissions creating industries overseas, while as customers, re-importing the manufactured products of those high emissions industries, using borrowed money.
“Renewable ” power generation is a noble goal, but advocates often reject objective analysis. Inefficient technologies reliant on “faith” or “ideology” to justify their existence can only succeed as long as the taxpayer is willing to accept the burden of economic decline.
It’s not that “renewable ” energy doesn’t have a valuable role to play in energy supply. Applications exist where renewable energy technology is not only more economic, but the only feasible method of power production. The problem with renewables is the incompatibility of large scale industrial generation.
Much of our modern world is created by a product popularized by the Romans, and developed by British engineer John Smeaton and later Joseph Aspdin ( Portland cement )
The Cement industry is very energy intensive and creates high level of C02 emissions. The induction of carbon capture processing will nearly double existing energy usage.
The cement industry uses only one-quarter of one percent of total U.S. energy, but it’s the most energy-intensive. (Roughly 10 times its share of the nation’s gross output of goods and services). Cement is the largest industrial user of coal and petroleum coke.
The Industry uses “high draw’ power, necessitating the installation of step down substations etc. Major plants have their own power generation, fired by coal or natural gas. The industry is working hard to develop more environmentally friendly technologies (with some success) but power generation is a major cost to production, and that power must be “on demand’ and reliable.
The power generation requirements of Lafarge Cement Plant in Alpena MI, would require a solar installation covering the entire county, possibly the State, and still not generate enough power to operate the plant at maximum efficiency.
However, it’s just this sort of industrial high energy/high high emission user where the greatest difference can be made. Just as eliminating one container ship using bunker oil, can offset 50 million motor vehicles, so too can the development of scaled thorium (or even fusion) power generation prove highly effective.
Wind and Solar have a place, but spending vast sums on these technologies will not produce the dramatic reductions in emissions that dealing with the problems of high energy demand industries can provide.
The challenge is, do you want to :- (a) just feel self-righteous, morally superior, and ideologically pure by supporting an inefficient but populist technology, reliant upon support from the taxpayer ad infinitum. or (b) Invest in large scale efficient power generation that can meet the needs of heavy power users, provide massive reduction in harmful environmental emissions, while creating economic prosperity, and self reliance ?
The development of US natural gas reserves has made a bigger impact on reducing US emissions in a single year, than the entire Wind and Solar industry in it’s history.
But, it’s not a matter of either/or, instead we should be developing as many strategies as possible, assessing the strengths and weakness in every technology objectively, and without bias or emotionally charged political allegiances.
Thank you Cameron and Arlene for expressing some thoughtful responses to this subject. You expressed thoughts and deep concerns that parallel my inner thought workings over the past 38 years of work towards Sustainable Solution’s. Trying to reduce and change away from the pathways of the past and to correct and mitigate the multi dimensional negative consequences of Un controlled , rampant and in many cases UN Necessary levels of carbon fuel burning .
Many of my Colleagues also have Internal Fatigue or Ruminations of it as we soberly realize that even though renewable energy has reached critical mass in Global markets, the global economy has so much Embedded Carbon to make it go that we have wondered if the opportunity window has slipped by or it will take draconian efforts to finally get a real handle on it. Reduce it significantly in time to save the family of humanity from going over the cliff.
Cameron you stood tall to our colleague Marco, who yes presents many a narrative that is dis missive and bordering on cynical even when he is presented with hard industrial facts and engineering realities . Now in his latest message to Craig he starts soft peddling his attacks on Renewable Power. Good to read a more balanced side.
His presentation of cement plants is quite interesting. Some good facts Marco. You have accused me of being part of some Kumbaya club so here are some more cement facts.
Perhaps you overlooked just as any of us can do in one of these forums. We are trying to say impact statements , and accurate and under pressure to be brief.
One reason that current nuclear plants are not carbon neutral to the level that their proponents claim is the fact that nuclear requires Mega Tonnage of cement and fossil fuel to produce all the material Inputs needed to build a nuclear plant.
Serious analyses of these processes tend to show a negative carbon balance , that is they consume more carbon than they save not just in their construction but in the intensive electrical demands and petro chemical inputs for fuel fabrication and refueling that goes on every 18 months and then add the decommissioning and waste monitoring in perpetuity. The aggregated volumes make the balance more negative against their carbon free claims.
There are numerous scientific both academic and governmental and a few private sector reports that explain all of this. Its all out there.
So the nuclear genie and its false promises of Bigger is always Better does not hold up.
Colleague
Here is some Inconvenient Truths and To be objective, the cement industry on a global basis realized that the threats of Global warming were Real and they knew their carbon contribution was real and they would be a prime target for environmental limitations or regulations etc. in early 1990’s.
The good news is that they acknowledged this internally without governmental rules in place. Yes they were pro active, perhaps for self serving reasons in contrast to lets say Exxon Mobil ( who knew by their own internal research that carbon and themselves was the man made issue , they knew this in early 1980’s but became financiers of mega climate denial efforts that have created division and slower action sad truth) .
Cement industry leaders embarked on how could they improve processes , reduce carbon , use used tires for fuel blending to reduce raw carbon fuel combustion and also ramp up their capability to burn hazardous waste so they reduce fuel usage more and also provide society a means of burning toxic waste in a safer manner versus other not so good options. There are other good things they have done but the point is sometimes Industry seeking a profit does act proactively for the Collective good including their own. but it is the exception much to often in a imperfect market driven economy, where quarterly stock bonuses are the Holy Grail !
In some cases they buy wind and solar power to reduce the usage of coal to fire their plants.
They began these activities in the 1990’s instead of being cheerleaders for the climate denier money loving greed club.
Yes an industrial world needs cement and this may be a reality until suitable substitutes are available in volume needed to meet growing needs. But at least they are making some reductions and progress.
One of the take homes should be , we need a diversified fuel mix. The more wind and solar and end use efficiency along with Integrated load /energy management we can deploy the better off we will be. , Technologies like batteries , CHP that is combined heat and power co-generation so fossil fuel combustion efficiency are increased into the upper 65 % to 75 % range, thus delivering more energy value units to the market but with LESS Inputs and most of it would be Less Carbon. So we serve man-kinds needs but also reduce end use.
So Marco before you pull out the bigger nuclear and other power plant solution as the Total Innevitable Solution, one must recognize that building a big nuke and locking the end users into false economics of lower cost running power which is what happens has many a Un Intended consequences. The price signal to reduce wasteful usage is gone and we end up with the habit of using more power than we really need. Bigger is not Better as it locks us into inefficient processes in many cases and one can see this irony in many areas of our society. The third world has every right to grow and prosper but there are many bad habits of our economies and cultures that they would be Wiser than Wise not to Copy! or Emulate !!!. I realize that these internal realities of power market pricing are not common discussion points at cocktail parties.
But the market impact of big plants is that it freezes out better technical solutions like Co-generation so we get stuck with 35 % Thermal efficiency or less from big plants versus the 65 % to 75 % Thermal Efficiency of a Co – Gen plant. I think the average reader can make a accurate choice between the competing values!
Many a cement plant could utilize co-generation systems to complement their current fuel blending if it was not tethered to a discounted volume electric rate to keep a nuclear unit or even a big old dirty polluting coal plant fully loaded up so shareholders can make more money while society must raise taxes to combat the air pollution.
The claims that natural gas alone has reduced more carbon CO2 in the air than the wind / solar well that may be another over generalization. I would check the EIA data for that one. The US is at or around 68 to 71 GW ( 68,000 to 71,000 megawatts ) of wind now. Projected to be well over 30 % of total electric resource by 2030’s. Solar is at 23 GW ‘s and projected to be over 40 by 2017. So we may not be able to over take gas in this area until the 2030 time frames when both solar and wind will be the dominant technology. Gas due to price increases will become a complimentary fuel to balance things out at night etc. This will happen sooner if the Wall St funders of the shale gas sector get more greedy and promote high levels of gas exports that w raise domestic prices much higher sooner.
In contrast several of the components in our energy package that we presented last Friday, well they are fixed. No inflation or price increases just some minimal service over a long lifetime.
The other potential fallacy in the gas saves more co2 statement is that currently close to 37 % of the gas found in the shale plays in the big fields in the US is not captured. it is Flared ( burned off ) due to the false market imperfections in the fossil fuel market. Lack of Regulatory , need for short term profits for speculators. This is one of the collateral damages that years of climate denier activity has brought us. yes we burn off 37 % or maybe more of the gas we find. If we took CO2 issue more serious then the regualtory mechanisms would be in place and the players would have to do the good Stewardship Practices that are cost effective over long run.
Not only do we waste the gas this increases global warming as burning pure methane emits more co2 than processed natural gas. Like 20 % more in density give or take a few?
Then there are fugitive emissions from once again the market failures in the oil / gas fields as the gathering lines, mid stream and long haul pipelines leak volumes of gas into the air thus causing more damaging pollution. Industry relies on a mortgaged legislators to prevent good practice rules again ! So much for American Exceptionalism winning again ?? !
These are real facts not positions and they Illustrate why we need to Ramp Up all End use Efficiency, Renewable technologies, Improve them ( new solar cells getting in over 27 % range) Wind keeps getting better. Just last week, Warren Buffet , heard of him Marco? He just ordered over 400 more megawatts of wind in Iowa. Wind is now the biggest part of his Energy company Mid American Energy Holdings. He does build and operate some coal plants historically but now phasing them out. Owns a Pacific Corp Utility and Rocky Mountain Power too. A good target for you. Suggest you go show Warren that he is making big financial mistakes, and Missing out on new Energy Opportunities, perhaps he can be converted into building done of your still theoretical Thorium plants. He has the money to do it.
Market place realities not political positions from 38 years of energy and environmental work on the Front and Back lines as well as the Badlands too !
Thank you again Cameron and Arlene for your usual Thoughtful comments You motivated me to Stand Tall and Speak some Truths to other Voices. Peace to All
stjoseph09
I’m still waiting to hear some ” hard industrial facts and engineering realities ” !
Warren Buffet like every investor will follow a trail of government money. Whenever governments subsidize guaranteed profits, investment will follow. For the same reason Warren Buffet is the largest contributor to Pres Obama’s election funds. Warren Buffet is opposed to pipelines, not for environmental reasons, but because he’s the largest owner of rail rolling stock for transporting Natural Gas.
Like most idealists, you talk in generalities, and potentialities without actually addressing real world reality.
I used the US cement industry as an example of an industry that requires massive and constant “power on demand”. The cement industry is essential to the national economy. The cement plants in just one state consume more power than the entire power generation of Wind and Solar power in the US !
This is just one example of how incompatible intermittent power generation is when attempting to meet the needs of an industrialized society. Simply pointing out the carbon emissions of coal or even NG plants isn’t helpful without an alternative. !
Industrialized societies can’t, and won’t, adapt to an inadequate power source unable to supply “power on demand ‘. Any industrialized society economy that attempted this would become noncompetitive. (as Germany is discovering)
That’s the reality. It might be an unpleasant reality, but it’s reality.
Massive power demand, requires massive “on demand” generation. The only technology that exists is Nuclear. Not the 60 year old nuclear technology you seem focused upon, but vastly different advanced nuclear power generation, using different fuels. (No giant cooling towers that you seem fixated upon for a start ! In fact the entire plant can be located below ground))
The US EIA estimates that almost 10% of US electricity generation is derived from renewable sources. http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained 2014
These include:
Biomass 50%
Wood and wood waste
Municipal solid waste
Landfill gas and biogas
Ethanol
Biodiesel
Hydro-power 26 %
Geothermal 2%
Wind 18%
Solar 4%
These figures include the entire home solar panel generating capacity, and makes no allowance for the problems of siting wind power. The EIA estimates that more than 40% of Wind generation is “dumped” and solar could be as high as 80 %.
But taken at its most optimistic, the total generating power of the billions invested in Solar and Wind technology (still incapable of “power on demand”), is less than .06% of power available for industrial usage.
In contrast, a modern nuclear ( my preference is Thorium) facility could supply clean, emission free “power on demand” for a fraction of the cost and ensure American Industrial competitiveness. http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/09/molten-salt-nuclear-reactor-review-and.html
It’s not that Solar and Wind have no future or the technology won’t improve,( it certainly will ) it’s that you’re trying to redefine the problem to suit your preferred solution.
I think you display your partisan bias when you express a fear that a large scale emission free competitor will retard the demand for wind and power.
That’s might well be the case, but then what’s really important ? Removing the need for fossil fuel power generation, or the financial well-being of the Wind and Solar industry ?
@ stjoseph09
Here’s the latest from Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) the principle lobby group for solar power arguing for an extension of government tax breaks and subsidies for the Solar Industry.
” Unless the ITC is extended, it’s.calculated that the solar industry would will not be able generate enough electricity to reach it target of powering 19 million homes thereby accounting for 3.5% of U.S. electricity generation by 2030.
The ITC must remain as this target represent the removal100 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions annually — the equivalent of taking 20 million cars off the roads.
The cost to the taxpayer is difficult to guarantee, but certainly less than the $ 11.5 trillion originally estimated, more in the vicinity of 1-2 trillion over 15 years ”
ER, with all due respect to SEIA, but that’s not much of a target, and a lot money for a nation with a nearly $20 trillion national debt.
( 20 million cars is just the equivalent of one container ship’s emissions in 6 months ! )
Where does America get the other 97.5 % , needed to power an ever more energy hungry society ?
The Peoples Republic of China, India and Japan, are locked in a battle to build the first large scale Thorium reactors. Japan believes that it can mass produce small scale reactors with a capacity of 1 to 2 GWh output . This method would reduce transmission costs and allow for a very small installation footprint, (mostly underground). The cost of each plant fully installed could be as low as a billion dollars (some old coal plants could be re-cycled with the balance of the land redeveloped as industrial parks).
The Chinese and Indians already have plants under construction, and are racing to develop the newest technology and cheapest construction costs.
If the Japanese engineers are correct, the total cost of constructing enough power to supply 39% of the power needed in the US by 2030, could be less than $ 700 billion. This would completely eliminate coal as fuel to generate electricity.
Thorium plants are very economical to operate, but still produce the sort of ” power on demand” required by an industrial society.
Best of all, the unfortunate taxpayer doesn’t need to provide incentives and subsidies.
Good Evening Marco and other Colleagues in this Forum,
Found some time to reply to your last two comments. You do point out some limitations and yes the dependence on the ITC for the residential and utility scale market.
Bear in mind that the goal of the ITC was to provide funding floors to help the industry get economical and grow its legs. To a large degree this has happened as the installed price for Utility scale soalr plants larger than 5 megawatts has gone from a all in price of $ 6.10 per watt in the mid 2008 time frame. In 2014 the average all in price was $ 3.00 per watt. And there are some really large scale plants that have come in close to $ 2.00 per watt.
Capacity factors for these plants are now averaging 28 % , single tracking.
This is an Awesome cost reduction performance , it validates the Wisdom and Efficacy of the DOE President Obama RE push and programs. other presidents talked a game he got it done Despite total opposition from the financially mortgaged opposition congress . ( they are on the take of the Carbon sector ) Government programs can work out well despite RED Herring claims to the opposite . I take the time to state these things as you just repeat your worn out Strawman generalizations on these thins and don’t seem to acknowledge some Facts.
BTW Solyndra one of the carbon heads leading battle cry’s. well that grant was started by one G W Bush before Obama was elected. obama gave the second installment of the grant a fact our corporate smear machine media fails to clarify when reporting on the failure. So dont go there its a dead end .
I don’t have the time or the energy to point by point rebut or correct all of your points. I will speak to just a few.
Yes, The numbers you quote for residential when you mention SEIA are pretty in line with what I am familiar with.
In the Utility scale solar pv market the current project scheduling QUE registered with the various ISO’s in the United States . that is all of the Independent Sales Operators that are regional across various states. They have 40,000 megawatts ( 40 GW) listed currently. So this would be in addition to the smaller forecast for residential solar so the aggregated out put in power plus the carbon reduction will be much greater than your figures reflect.
Realize we have 22 to 24 GW ( 22,000 – 24,000 solar megawatts) now. That includes all solar so that is the baseline. For CO2 reduction I would be comfortable with a nationwide average of around .55 to .60 tons per megawatt hr reduction in CO2. Giving credit and recognizing the improved performance of existing coal plant environmental emissions reductions. Gas is about 45 % less polluting on average factoring the vintage of older plants.
Marco I find it hard to accept or maybe I mis understood what you said that a large cement plant requires more firm power than All the Solar we now have .!
The mid sized Coal / tire and haz waste fuel blending cement plant in the Waxahachie Tx. area required only around 2oo megawatts of power. So there is a big gap as we have 22 to 24 GW now ?
In respect to Warren Buffett detach your dislike for him because he supports Pres. Obama . That is overly simplistic and misses the mark by a large margin.
1. He builds the next 400 megawatts in Iowa adds the wind to his portfolio. He has to pay for it and yes he gets the PTC credit which is a market floor support. ( something the fossil fuel industry and those Co Dependent on the Government Nuke Players have had and continue to have , like multi generational.
2. He sees a market opportunity as Wind provides Real Power and contributes over 27 % of IOWA’s energy supply. So it must be real energy. Iowa gets 27 % now and going for more. Also they export to Eastern States so someone else is making money. People , the marketplace don’t pay for virtual power Marco , so it can’t be virtual as you state.
3. Warren as I said thru Mid American Energy , owns and operates both coal and gas plants but now backing out of coal. he gets it on global warming and is divesting to a degree that he can as he has big time sunk costs.
4. Warren Buffetts transportation co , he owns the Burlington Railroad and he carries OIL and COAL but does not transport natural gas in his railroad trains ??? If he did ( not cost effective or doable at scale !) then the burning off of un treated natural gas would not be as rampant in the Baaken Shale fields in Montana and North Dakota. Warren has built a 14 train a day railroad shipping depot in western N Dakota to move the oil to market.
From environmental point of view this is the area he needs to do some house cleaning, etc.
5. I used Warren Buffet as an example of the high and growing level of investment by private sector players not just in the Us but globally. RE is not a toy or a fickled source of power it is part of the new energy supply model.
The track record for nuke and the on again and then off again development of the small scale modular nuclear units is wanting still. the deployment of just 2 SMR’s ( nukes) will happen it looks like by 2022 in US. $ of the 6 companies including the venerable nuclear player Westinghouse have all backed off. They cancelled their planned SMR in Missouri at an existing nuclear plant and they had gained regulatory permits to build. they cancelled for financial, operational , and market uncertainty reasons. This was at the Callaway Plant.
So nuclear just like the promise of fusion ( for 5 decades now it was just 1 more decade away) continue to stumble and bumble. Sit still and hold your breath but the market place is not doing that. It is moving forward.
As for China and India which has lots of Thorium, I look forward to reading about their development of the new technologies. Last I heard China was building 8 or 12 of the so called new AP 1000 Westinghouse advanced nukes.
India’s prime Minister just announced a major plan to ramp up SOLAR did not read anything about Thorium reactors , well maybe it is a big state secret perhaps! The RE announcement is in all the trade publications. As I said before the technology has promise so hope that it can move forward if it can be done. Just do it like Nike says.
6. The RE cost reductions are real , the performance is improved and still has gains to be made so RE will earn its place in the market when all this debating is over. It is Fait Accompli Get over it ! As Machiavelli said , We should Accept and Adapt!
Some Inconvenient facts for you to read and no need to comment or try to rebut because they are FACTS , not my opinions or positions. Just facts. They give me Guidance that is the point.
To add more complexity and some Irony directed at You..You mentioned small nuclear technology, Well after close to 8 or 10 years .the first two SMR’s that are being built in the US in the South EAST presently are getting a collective $ 425 million DOE Grant authorized by your anti hero President Barrack Obama , so put that in your thorium waste pile and let it simmer.
The 4 large AP 1000 nukes being built now in the South and all four behind schedule and over $ 2.5 Billion in cost over runs also are getting DOE Grant money. Pres. Obama authorized more money to help the nuclear fellows out again , their partners the utilities but they only got 2 companies to buy in. He does not discriminate between technologies.
A third unit by a third private sector co. has withdrawn from future considerations for its SMR until they work some things out.
the current consensus in the nuclear industry is that SMR’s will only have two units built by 2022. They are waiting for the technology to prove out, There are real concerns about cost. Right now the cost is estimated by the SMR manufactures to be $ 5,000 per kw. Their target Strike price is $ 2,500 needed to compete with Wind, Solar, Gas and bio gas and even Geo thermal.
The Silver lining for them is the closure of coal plants and also the coming price increases in natural gas in the mid 2025 to 2030 time frame. So they are not just around the corner. By that time as I have already said the price for RE will be even lower as w batteries.
Yes Marco one of the companies from Japan is Toshiba with SMR and they have a interesting concept. Given their track record in other areas I think they might be a good bet.
Globally now, Around 60 to 65 % of all investment dollars for power generation are for RE so the SMR and other technology better get cranking. .
yes you are free to ignore them . If you strongly believe that the Thorium is ready for the market , take my advice go sell Warren Buffett or someone of his position who has the scale of investment funds you need to bring your technology to market, You would have the scale needed to grow and stop all of us RE characters and our Growing Legions of Followers and Sustainability proponents from growing more and then your world would be safer from your point of view . You would have the opportunity to be stop and Humble us and preserve the Industrial order . What a Noble concept! I wish you well in that type of Quest.
In closing Marco, each of us is entitled to Opinions but Facts are Stubborn things and they don’t change or go Away. I know many an opposition party is rooted in the bad habit of trying to dispel this reality, much to the Detriment of Mankind!
Shipping natural gas in railroad cars, that would be a Tall Tale even in Texas and many other places.
Your dismissive comments reflect only on You as you blur the lines between Facts and Opinions, period End of Story .
take care Best Wishes and go sell some Thorium energy.
Thank you for your reply,
Perhaps a little reading might assist your understanding : :
Bloomberg reports, the recent rejection of the Keystone pipeline project by the Obama Administration due to safety issues, producers predict a bottle neck. With rail, capacity is easily increase by adding more cars. It’s a much bigger deal to increase pipeline capacity. Railroad investors such as Warren Buffet are ready to handle that gap moving the oil and gas via rail. [ excerpt from http://energyservicessouth.com/pipelines-vs-rail-transport-for-natural-gas/
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/16/us-usa-railway-natgas-insight-idUSKBN0ER0D620140616
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060014956
Oh, and you are aware that Natural Gas is shipped by rail all over the world in LPG<or LNG format, don't you ?
You also make some pretty big assumptions ! I do not dislike Warren Buffett (In fact I'm a huge fan. Nor do I dislike President Obama (some policies maybe ). I actually believe it's important for government to provide incentives and tax breaks as a method of managing the economy.
Nor is India's thorium program a "State Secret " ! Just a little 'google' would solve the mystery.!
You could start with, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India's_thstage_nuclear_power-programme ], and move on to any one of the over two hundred articles.
The big problem for the US nuclear industry is that it's hide bound by an inflexible regulatory regime that hasn't moved with new technology, and opposed by groups fixated on the problems of 60 year old technology.
What's really sad for the US, is thorium Technology was pioneered by US engineers and scientists. The could have been the leader, but will be surpassed.
The death of the UK steel industry due to emission restrictions, is focusing the UK government on the merits of Thorium power. If the UK winds back it's involvement in the EU, the UK conservative government is beginning to revisit thorium technology as a method of re-establishing industrial competitiveness. ( hopefully they'll import Australian Thorium).
The problem for intermittent power, is not the price of generation, but usability !
Until renewables can supply "power on demand" they will always be a small players in the energy market.