Talking Points for Craig Shields’ Interview with the Wall Street Business Network
One of my colleagues is trying to put together an interview for me with the Wall Street Business Network, and asked me to develop some “talking points” to provide an example of how this might unfold. I just knocked out the assignment, and I thought I’d share them with readers:
Question: There appears to be a debate about the readiness and scalability of renewable energy as it applies to replacing traditional energy resources. Can you comment?
CS: There are a couple of ways of looking at this, the first of which is to look at it from the standpoint of the true gating factors associated with phasing out fossil fuels, the largest of which is politics. The underlying reason why this is happening so slowly is the resistance from the oil companies and Congressmen they control. Here, I like to quote Ed Rendell, the ex-governor of Pennsylvania, whom I’ve seen several times at the Renewable Energy Finance Forum events that I regularly attend; he also happens to be on the board of advisors to a company in ocean thermal energy conversion in which I’m a stockholder. He says, “If you expect any substantive change out of Washington, you’re out of your mind. The oil companies host huge fund-raisers for their congressional candidates seven days a week. It never stops. IT NEVER STOPS. If renewable energy is to rise to prominence in the U.S., it will happen because masses of people demand it of their state governments, and because of key players in corporate America who, for whatever reason, really want this to happen.”
If you want a good snapshot on this, just look at the candidates in whom the Koch brothers are investing collectively tens of millions of dollars to support. You’ll notice that, to a person, these candidates are pro-fossil fuels, and that many have overt positions against sustainable energy, whether that means adding tariffs to solar and wind energy, suing various state governments to retract their RPSs (renewable portfolio standards), going after the EPA for its enforcement of the Clean Power Act, or several other major approaches.
Question: What about the economic arguments?
CS: As I just suggested, we simply don’t have the political will to do this, but what lies behind that lack of will? It’s primarily the vigorous dissemination of certain myths, e.g., that clean energy would hurt the economy, and that it’s a “job killer.” However, when you do the math here, you quickly derive the exact opposite result; clean energy is destined to be the defining industry in the 21st Century; it will ONLY be the countries that understand this and invest in it that will emerge as economic leaders. If you want some good reading on this, let me refer you to an extremely widely published and often cited economist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst who lays out the actual number of full-time, high-paying jobs that will be created when we begin to make a commitment to phasing out fossil fuels in favor of renewables. That’s Dr. Robert Pollin, whom I interviewed for my second book: “Is Renewable Really Doable?” in 2012.
Question: But isn’t the cost of renewable energy non-competitive?
CS: Not in most cases. Yet another way of analyzing this issue is to look at the constantly declining LCOE (levelized cost of energy) associated with renewables, primarily solar and wind. We’re signing PPAs (power purchase agreements) for wind energy at $0.025 per kWh in certain parts of the country, about half of the LCOE of a kWh from coal. Now yes, these are certain specific cases where demand is low and supply is high, but these locations are becoming more numerous every year. In fact, the entire premise of my last book (“Bullish on Renewable Energy – 14 Reasons that Clean Energy Investors Can’t Lose”) is that it is the force of pure market economics that is driving this change. With each passing year, we get better cost-effectiveness out of solar and wind, but also the other major “flavors” of renewable energy (biomass, hydrokinetics and geothermal).
Question: There seems to be growing concern among lay people regarding environmental issues. Is that an important ingredient in all this?
CS: Ironically, as much as we might like to think otherwise, environmentalism may play a fairly insignificant role in driving the adoption of clean energy; i.e., this will happen whether or not the people of Earth care about our planet or not. Now, of course, ever-growing numbers of us DO care, and that level of concern is increasing with each report of record-high temperatures, wildfires, droughts, severe storms, desertification of farm land, etc.
Question: What about subsidies and incentives?
CS: Well, let’s look at this through the lens of the law. The only reason that fossil fuels are still affordable is that virtually no effort is made to force the industry to internalize the externalities associated with burning them, chiefly long-term environmental damage in the form of climate change, ocean acidification and loss of diversity, as well as healthcare costs. A few years ago, the Harvard School of Medicine published a report in which it estimated that the annual cost of dealing with the lung disease associated with breathing the aromatics of coal-fired power plants was somewhere between $350 billion and $500 billion per year. What happens when it’s no longer possible for this industry to use our oceans and atmosphere as garbage dumps? The short answer: Things change instantly.
Question: OK, but let’s go back to the original question about scalability.
CS: I think we need to put the scalability of renewable energy in perspective. First of all, note that the Earth receives 6000 times more power from the sun than all 7.3 billion of us are consuming. All we need is a set of solutions designed to harness that fraction (1/6000th) of that energy every day. Note the word “set” of solutions; it doesn’t have to be a single one; in fact it won’t. Now, given where this planet is with respect to the evolution of technology and the capacity to manufacture and deploy it, how credible is it that we simply cannot scale solar, wind, biomass, hydro, geothermal, ocean current, tidal, wave, energy efficiency, smart grid, energy storage, electric transportation and so forth to that level? Answer: it’s not credible at all.
Question: But why isn’t the democratic process in the U.S. a sufficiently powerful force in making all this happen?
CS: It’s because our democracy is a shambles. Just to take one example, the U.S. Supreme Court decision “Citizens United” has enabled unlimited amounts of money from transnational corporations to bend our elections in any way these profit-making entities desire. Until we can get that overturned, and go on to remove the corruptive power of money over politics, we will not have a democracy in any meaningful sense of the word. The will of the people right now is almost completely irrelevant to congressional decision making.
Here are a few facts that came from a recent presentation that Harvard Law professor Lawrence Lessig gave to a large and earnest audience.
According to surveys of thousands of Americans, we almost unanimously agree on two things: a) money has too much influence on politics, and b) there is nothing that can be done to change this.
• 4 million Americans (a little under 2%) made cash donations to a politician in the last election, but the top 100 gave more than the bottom 4.75 million.
• A study from Princeton University shows an almost 100% correlation between Congressional votes and the interests of these Top 100.
• The same study shows that the decisions that Congress makes on the variety of issues are completely independent of the will of the people. Whether 20%, 40%, 60%, or 80% of the electorate supports a certain subject, this has no statistical bearing whatsoever on how the Senate and the House will vote on the matter.
Question: Thanks very much, Craig. By the way, what are your personal aspirations?
CS: Happy to be here. As wild as this sounds, I would love to play a role in trying to clean up Washington (and the rest of the world) regarding this energy mess. As I like to kid my wife, “(Energy Secretary Ernest) Moniz could call me any minute and ask for my help.” Of course, I’m not holding my breath, but I suppose it could happen. More probably, I will simply continue to expand my reach into public consciousness about these matters. I also should mention that I was a business consultant for 30 years, and that I continue to function as a consultant to a variety of the most promising clean energy concerns, in which I take good ideas and help move them forward in the marketplace.
Interesting, I would think that you might want to start with the economic aspects first and migrate to the political. It seems somewhat confrontational the other way but perhaps that is what you intended.
A thing that also seems missing from the top is that shocking quote or statistic that grabs attention early. To say that politics is a problem, for any problem, is something we have heard how many times before.
Craig good overview and it touches on some major points that make the case for a combination of a complete mix of technologies combined together can meet the power demands of a growing economy.
Some points to consider adding;
1. The jobs argument and how in just lets say of 10 years of increased RE deployment Solar, Wind and others have over 300,000 new jobs and growing.
2. Society is getting a good return on its RE investments thru forward thinking tax policy – incentives.
3.Point out that RE is delivering a Better return when the total amount of tax subsidies that carbon and nuclear have gotten over
100 years.
4. Mention the total dollars of the carbon / nuclear subsidies versus the RE tax incentives and make the clear closing point statement – Re which is Young technology has prices that are going down and the mature technologies costs are still going up . ( exception is oil but that is due to over supply on global price market as the new oil sources in US are higher than the legacy supplies.
So the question about what pathway is better is answered. New technology with a declining price curve or a mature sector with increasing prices!
4. You allude to high health costs for coal which is true but until a direct link to the negative externalities like a $36 per ton carbon tax is in place the health costs are intangibles. True but we need a carbon tax to shake things up and drive more innovation and more rapid deployment.
5. A point that is often overlooked concerning RE is that it reduces the demand for fossil fuels thus moderates price inflation for those fuels. This benefits the general economy reduces inflationary pressures.
6. Decentralized energy sources also create more widely distributed economic activity across more regions and the same for jobs etc. It does not concentrate economic activity and this is important for the general economy given the hallowing out of our country’s industrial base etc.
Distributed resources create more spending power in local economies and people can relate to that benefit.
Nice presentation and good wishes with your effort.
Craig I know your heart is at the centre of this pretend interview but unfortunately it highlights that you are a part of the problem rather than a part of the solution with this thinking.
None of your stuff is supported by economics or science at any level. In essence it is primary school level gobbledy gook stuff. Don’t take my word on that though, run it past any prominent US scientist (you don’t seem to ever refer to academics or scientists I have noted Craig – are you a bit intimidated by the possibility of inconvenient truths perhaps).
I won’t elaborate ad-nauseam about this point Craig because I have touched on it repeatedly over several years in many forums and I am always astonished that so few commentators actually seek out, or seem to apply any independent analysis or intellectual rigor to this subject. Rather they seem happier trotting out a dogma that “somebody else” actually convinced them of somewhere along the way.
Unfortunately you simply don’t get it and that’s perfectly OK many others don’t get it either. Of course collectively there are huge numbers who like yourself simply can’t visualise the scope of the greenhouse gas issue and the commensurate scale of engineering and scientific research effort necessary over the next 20 years to permanently reverse the greenhouse trends by technological means, as well as increasing commercially viable energy production and its availability everywhere to power the futures of all people.
A by-product of permanently reversing greenhouse gas emissions through technological means must be a massive increase in energy availability for all people. These two imperatives are connected and indivisible. I don’t see many comments about these important imperatives. Do you concede they are important or not Craig?
Again I say, although your heart is certainly in it Craig, many of us realise that alone is not going to cut it when push comes to shove.
Lawrence Coomber
I normally ignore comments like this, and I hate to come across as defensive, but I have say: Holy smokes, Lawrence; you really are out there. I speak with scientists regularly and my viewpoints on our energy/environmental future are largely derived from exactly these conversations. Now, it’s true that not everyone agrees, but, when it comes to making long-term predictions, I think that’s unavoidable.
I have to wonder if you really believe what you’re saying, not to mention why you say it. Why on Earth do you read my stuff if you have such low regard for my thinking? What do you make of the fact that I’m asked to speak at conferences on this subject? No offense, but you really are a bizarre fellow.
I guess I’ll respond to your comment: A by-product of permanently reversing greenhouse gas emissions through technological means must be a massive increase in energy availability for all people. These two imperatives are connected and indivisible. I don’t see many comments about these important imperatives. Do you concede they are important or not Craig? I would put it this way: Yes, there is an imperative to clean up our energy mix; I wouldn’t have written four books on the subject (two of which were best-sellers on Amazon in the respective categories) if I didn’t agree with that. In terms of providing more power to all people, I’m not so sure.
I would say that Americans, more example, consume more resources (energy and otherwise) than they should, but that we need to encourage the developing world to increase its resource consumption. One of my colleagues, Dr. Nate Hagens (a scientist, if you can believe that…lol) argues that energy consumption per capita in the OECD countries actually must fall, given that our civilization is at the end of both cheap credit and cheap energy. I’m not convinced of this, but he defends this position in a well-reasoned and compelling way.
@ Craig,
I don’t think it’s fair to describe Lawrence as “bizarre” !
I think Lawrence believes since you became an author and advocate of your own choosing, you have an obligation to reply to criticism. ( Of course, it’s also your right to simply ignore critiques).
It’s understandable for Lawrence to feel that just announcing “I talk to “scientists” all the time”, is inadequate without explaining the identity and context of the conversation.
I don’t believe Lawrence is challenging your integrity, just your objectivity.
Is Lawrence justified ? Well, you do describe Dr Nate Hagens as a “scientist”.
Dr Hagens holds a Masters Degree in Finance from the University of Chicago and a PhD in Natural Resources from the University of Vermont. he was a vice President at the investment firms Salomon Brothers and Lehman Brothers.
His PhD from Vermont seems to be based on studying environmental philosophy, sociology, policy, planning, economics, and conflict resolution.
Dr Hagen is obviously a bright and interesting person, but not someone usually associated with the definition of a “scientist”.
(After all, I certainly don’t consider myself a “scientist”, yet I hold similar qualifications !)
I don’t believe Lawrence has a “low regard for your thinking”, in fact quite the opposite, he makes it clear he admires your sincerity and integrity.
Craig, we’re all just a little bizarre in our own way. As I see it, Lawrence is simply trying to keep an open, objective focus and avoid becoming an acolyte for a bizarre new faith, miss-describing itself as “science”.
Maybe “bizarre” isn’t the right word, but it sure strikes me as strange that a seemingly intelligent person would ridicule my position without offering a shred of data countering it. You have a good command of the the language; what would you call that?
And yes, lol, we’re all a little bizarre in our own way. I grant that entirely. 🙂
Craig,
I can’t speak for Lawrence, but one explanation that comes to mind, is your tenancy to mix fact and opinion together, one justifying the other. Assumptions are juxtaposed with advocacy and blended with selected facts.
I can see where that could cause confusion. (It took me a little while to understand :).
Lawrence has yet to grasp you are not attempting to write from an analytical, objective, or even balanced viewpoint, but rather a “call to arms” from an advocate who has already selected and developed deeply held positions on a number of issues.
I’m sure when he realizes this, he will appreciate your style of writing .
It’s true that I have a viewpoint here, but it’s hardly controversial: we need to accept what the vast majority of our scientists are telling us, and become better stewards of the environment. I scarcely think that overall “mental set” disqualifies me as an objective person.
Un Holy Toledo Lawrence ,
It is always a simple task to criticize especially in the vast subject matter of clean energy and global warming and the world’s demographics as well as diversity of resources, etc.
Perhaps the subject would be better served with some serious explanations and examples of specifics ,
I realize that Trumperian-ism is now in play here in the States but perhaps the Headwinds have over Corrected and and landed in Australia???
My point being – where are the FACTS and Wonder Wands for problem resolution – that is why I allude to the Trumperian-ism nature of your critique of Craigs efforts.
I yield further space to you for clarification with some real facts .
BTW Kenya is deploying a total of 23 megawatts of micro grid solar / wind and a few batteries among-st far flung villages to improve peoples lifes etc. They are building to SCALE of Need not Scale of some Investor Class need for a Bigger return despite environmental and natural law Limits!
Thee are countless examples of Real Progress being made to address the problems. Yes we need much more and More added to the Mix !
So show us the BEEF Please !
Carry On
Hi Craig,
I may be the only person who doesn’t understand this statement, but could this be clarified?
• 4 million Americans (a little under 2%) made cash donations to a politician in the last election, but the top 100 gave more than the bottom 4.75 million.
Looks like there’s a slight error in what I quoted, which should have read: “In 2014, less than 2% of America gave anything to anyone running for Congress. But of those who did, the top 100 gave as much as the bottom 4.75 million.”
This is still a little clumsy, but what what it means is that ~6 million Americans donated to congresspeople. Of those, the top 100 gave as much as the bottom 4.75 million. In other words, the contributions of almost everybody are dwarfed by those of the top 100. It’s the 80-20 rule on steroids.
Hope that helps.
Similarly, some folk ascribe decisive power to unions when it comes to buying politicians. To the extent that was ever true, it certainly is no longer.
“Contributions from organized labor, never dominant, have fallen in importance. The relative proportions of funds raised by Democrats from the top 0.01% and from organized labor provide a telling comparison. The top 0.01%, whose donations had been roughly on par with those of labor during 1980’s and early 1990’s, outspent labor by more than a 4:1 margin during the 2012 election cycle.” (Note this was the first election cycle in the US since the five to four Citizens United v FEC ruling by the SCOTUS.)
– Adam Bonica, Nolan McCarty, Keith T. Poole, and
Howard Rosenthal, published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives – from the American Economic Association, a non-profit, non-partisan, scholarly association dedicated to the discussion and publication of economics research, established in 1885
Hi Craig,
Hate to be awkward, but could you cite me the basis for your assertion;
“In 2014, less than 2% of America gave anything to anyone running for Congress. But of those who did, the top 100 gave as much as the bottom 4.75 million.”
How was this figure derived and by what methodology ? Or is this just another “urban fact” , quoted an re-quoted because it sounds like it should be accurate ?
No, it’s not awkward at all. It’s in the materials of the group “Mayday,” and referred to here: http://www.thecoli.com/threads/big-money-breaks-out-top-100-donors-give-almost-as-much-as-4-75-million-small-donors-combined.281684/
Craig,
I think you all endorse and applaud your dedication and desire to become better stewards of the environment.
But, the devil is in the detail of pursuing this praiseworthy goal. Not everyone, not even a majority of scientists, can agree on the best methods of achieving this outcome.
As for “needing to accept what the vast majority of our scientists are telling us “, sounds like commonsense until questioned. What exactly are our “scientists” telling us ? Which scientists, and how have they arrived at their conclusions ?
So much of the actual science has become confused with advocacy and extraneous distortions, that simply “accepting” is not terribly scientific !
It sounds more like a belief structure, where some things are taken as articles of faith or dogma.
Again, I ask the question :
Why do you believe the scientific credentials of:
A) Dr Hagens Masters Degree in Finance and a PhD in studying environmental philosophy, sociology, policy, planning, economics, and conflict resolution.
Is a more reliable scientific authority on the causes of climate change than;
B) Prof Professor Valentina Zharkova,Masters degrees in Chemistry, Applied Mathematics and Astronomy, Geo-physics and a Ph.D. in Astrophysics) ?
MP: Take it easy, my friend; you’re working way too hard. I’m sure you know:
I don’t think Hagens’ credentials are superior to Zharkova’s in any sense
I never called Hagens a climate scientist at all; since he’s an extremely senior economist, I referred to him as a scientist in that sense.
Please, relax. Calm yourself. Ahhhhh. That feels better, doesn’t it? 🙂
Craig,
I assure you “working hard” is not one of my qualities!
Also, analysts are noted for being annoyingly calm individuals 🙂
My point was that unless extremely well qualified in any particular field, we all rely on the opinions of experts.
Yet these “experts” often slide into fields which are only vaguely related to their primary qualifications, and by fudging terminology (“Scientist for economist is an example) become spokespersons and advocates for a particular theory or ideology.
The more charismatic, more personable and more skilled at presenting some advocates become, the science can be lost in the creation of a new movement with acolytes, followers, activists and gets inextricably meshed with political ideology.
Recently the “scientists” at the European Space Agency announced Antarctic as a whole has been shrinking in volume by 125 cubic kilometers a year,”
Coincidentally, equally well qualified scientists from NASA were reporting record increases of Antarctic ice levels.
Dr Pachauri frightened terrified Indian and Pacific Islanders and politicians with his alarmist conclusions that these islands nations would soon disappear as oceans water levels rose. (He advocated the immediate construction of massiveof sea walls).
In became very difficult for less celebrated, but far better qualified, scientists to disprove Dr Pachauri and his fellow “consensus” advocate/scientists, with studies proving that most Islands actually respond to rising sea levels by corresponding increases in land height.
(That is, unless humans construct sea walls restricting the natural process).
None of these random examples are to imply any dishonesty on behave of scientists or advocates, simply that once the media/ politicization process begins, it can get kinda confusing.
My point is that it has become very difficult for the average citizen to discern what is “science” and what is advocacy.
Haha.Craig all is forgiven, and MarcoPolo is correct, I admire your enthusiasm and involvement and passion very much, but you don’t have the independent mindedness of a Ralph Nader unfortunately.
Don’t forget please how I make my living though these days – I am a Renewable Energy Engineer, designer and manufacturer of inverters for Off Grid installations (www.aquilapower.com) plus lots of other innovative power products for Solar PV plus Battery storage installations. I design and install Renewable Energy Systems.
When I am not in the field, I am in the classroom promoting Renewable Energy Technology (surprise surprise). So we are involved in the same industry. You behind a keyboard and me working and advancing renewable energy technologies on the ground.
But despite all that, I can see that my profession is not the answer to where we must get to globally in the near future re new age energy technologies. I am not that self-centred or arrogant to believe that just because I have a vested interest in my industry today, that things should remain static as they are for my ongoing benefit tomorrow. They should not, and professional objectivity demands that I be open, honest and opinionated with extreme prejudice on the subject when required.
The world does exist to preserve my vested interests. Having said that, I will still turn up tomorrow at work and enthusiastically continue with an Off Grid project at Toowoomba with my crew. Why? Because we value what we do, and we are proud of our technology outcomes for our customers. We are chuffed when we make a big difference to people’s lives with a Renewable Energy Off Grid system.
But that’s simply not enough when confronted with a much bigger picture that needs cool heads and the world’s best and brightest thinkers to tackle without fear or favour.
And that is what professional detachment is all about.
Lawrence Coomber
Marco you seem to enjoy Majoring in Minor details in lieu of making stronger technical points or economic points etc. Changes in the world are over whelming dogmas daily now. The castles built on Sand are falling down….
Craig leaves the nuclear Genie Option door open – so he can’t be locked into a dead end mindset. What does it take for you to accept a Open Mind or Flexible Position.??
Curious about that.
The funding of elections in America is the Root cause of the problems we have corrupts the process and we get bad compromised policy.
The trail of mistakes is long and clearly defined in this area. We are suffering the consequences of Winner Take All Politics .
We need more Winners and the same goes for technology.
I never was in a Union but I see their societal value and their contributions to shared progress for society so I think it would be a good thing if they made some what of a comeback and organized people to Stand Up to the oppressive Investing Class that is working feverishly to use it up, burn it up, throw it away in respect to Resources & Sustainability all in the pursuit of Short Term economic gains.
But Hope does spring Eternal as there is a growing class of the investing class that gets it right and they are building business models based on Triple Bottom Line goals and Sustainability growing force in marketplace. So climb aboard the Train there is room for you too!
The other side who are short termers or dead enders as I can them –
Their goals and practices are in direct conflict with the good of Society and the general Economy. Funny thing many folks including well educated folks are beginning to connect all these Inconvenient Lies & repackaged Schemes. Adopting the other Model .
We shall see
Carry On
Hi Craig,
I agree with the post recommending economics first and politics second. This revolution can and should and must work, politics aside. It’s the economy and jobs, jobs, jobs.
You should emphasize solar first and wind second. Note that large utility-scale solar PPAs are 3-4 cents per kWh (Dubai, Mexico, Nevada) so all Americans will save money on their utilities from a shift away from coal and nuclear power plants. Secondly, solar now employs more people than the mining industry or the oil and gas industry, and we are just getting started.
You shot yourself in the foot by calling 2.5 cents per kWh wind energy a one-off case. You should be saying that wind is doable even at 2.5 cents per kWh which is good for utilities and for the upcoming energy storage business, driving down the need for peaking power plants.
Lastly, just as many young people joined Bernie Sanders movement, they will be a political force just as powerful as the Koch brothers because they want a sustainable future. Also, theswe revolutions can happen at the state level, and even at the local utility level. Soon we will have solar envy from coast to coast.
Good luck,
Robert
Thanks, Robert.
I’m not sure sure about what you’re saying re: solar and wind. The LCOE of wind is significantly lower than that of solar.
I wouldn’t say that the $0.025/kWh price is “one-off,” only that it’s higher in most parts of the country.
I totally agree that this demand for sustainability is growing every day, and will soon become an overwhelming force. The only question remains is how much damage will be done in the process. The answer, sad but rue: No one knows.
Two-thirds of all new generation capacity in the U.S. added in Q1 2016 was solar. The message is that solar trumps wind, and investors would be SURPRISED to read that PPAs are 3-4 cents/kWh.
Solar is cheap and getting cheaper. Let’s get the message out.
1) Can you send me something that suggests PPAs under 5 cents?
2) Wind is more than 10X the size of solar in terms of MWhrs delivered. I certainly wouldn’t ignore that.
As a concerned citizen of the Earth, as I’m sure you are, I’m wondering why solar and wind need to be pitted against one another, since both a growing fast and will soon be making enormous contributions.
@ ROBERT
WELL SAID – THE ECONOMICS ARE BECOMING COMPELLING. And we have only just begun.
On the jobs scene Oil and Gas though still has close to 2,500,000 people directly and another 500,000 in support . But they been doing it for over 100 years close to 150 or so.
Energy Efficiency jobs is the untold story as the engineering, HVAC , lighting , controls sectors are ramping up energy retrofits nationally. The PACE program – over $ 2 billion in projects in California are reducing KW demand and costs for business and governmental energy consumers.
These are all good for our economy. solar is being added on where it makes sense.
so yes indeed the train is marching in the right direction.
Good economics is over coming ignorant or corrupted political opposition to energy efficiency and the green revolution so we are beating them at their Own game.
Even in oil and Gas Texas there are 2,000 house developments that are Net Zero with out State or Utility incentives. Just plain life cycle costing economics the market place is responding. They are using a MIX of technology including GEO Thermal hvac, excellent foam insulation and windows , LED lites , Smart Appliances and some solar and a few wind turbines.
Texas AC loads are heavy and a BAU business as usual built home would need 5 to 10 tons of AC with a demand exceeding 10 kw per house. Plus other plug loads etc. Energy hogs of the past.
But using good design and the MIX I listed results in NET ZERO. Is it any wonder that the 2 extra Nukes for Texas were cancelled 5 years ago ! Energy Demnd Destruction that is Fixed Finito !
Maybe the bankers know more than they get credit for ???
So the energy landscape is changing when Texas folks join the Green Movement long long time a coming but it has arrived!
Laid off Texas oil drillers are now drilling geo thermal well fields and feeling better about what they are doing Prices for drilling these cost efficient geo wells is going down thus making ROI , etc better.
The public is barraged with false ads promoting so called american energy which is just oil and coal wash ads to make people remain dependent on the fossil fuel producers as if they are doing god’s work.
All the Renewable s and energy efficiency are also American energy – just more affordable and better for your health!
carry on
See below article from GTM: Dubai PPA = 2.99 cents/kWh, Mexico PPA = 3.5 cents/kWh
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/as-feed-in-tariffs-wane-auctions-are-causing-the-next-wave-of-solar-cost-im
The Nevada PUC changed the net-metering rules because NV Energy was able to get a PPA for 3.86 cents per kWh. I think it’s in the PUC’s decision.
Wow. Thanks. That’s exciting.
To everyone there is no solar versus wind war both are Ramping fast and will continue to Grow.
Wind is the cheapest at the Bus Bar but location and transmission costs drive it up some what more than solar utility.
There are two PPA s in Texas for solar at 100 megs for $ .035 cents or so.
Solar Dg may hit some bumps in road due to utility rate design push back and there may be a resetting in market for awhile.
Once the Wind fellas over come the learning curve on the East coast off shore with the larger turbines will see increased deployment going forward. The load centers are on East Coast so build it and they will use it. Less transmission costs .
Wind Developers in Central NM on the TRES Amigas project and interconnection station are signing PPA s w California utilities for Wind to be transported on the almost completed Sun Zia lines around 3,000 megs at full build out. The PPA s are in $ 35 to $ 40 per Mwhr range. The lines run from just West of Clovis NM West to Palo Verde nuke substation interconnection then West to California market.
so it goes both wind and solar have fixed prices too Yes there will be some set backs and the build-out will be limited to the needs for capacity by the utilities and end users but things looking good.
the politics will fade as more people make Green – from Green energy!
Thanks for letting us know about the Texas PPAs at 3.5 cents.
Both Mexico and India are going to do renewable energy tenders in September, with India shooting for PPAs for 25 GW. I expect the tenders to confirm 3-3.5 cents per kWh.
To combat climate change, we need the U.S., China, and India to dump all their coal power plants which are 70% of world consumption of coal, replacing them with lower cost renewable energy.
Robert it would be wonderful if the World took serious real fast action on closing coal plants . Would resolve the big sources of carbon emissions.
The push back from the invested capital makes this quite difficult to do. I wonder what the total Capital EX in these plants are and the total megawatts are?
Maybe a planned campaign over 10 years or something could be worked out just wonder . Nice idea! you have .
Please take the idea and mention it to the WSJ.
It turns out that China would embrace the idea because they know air pollution firsthand in Beijing, plus they are painfully aware that significant portions of the country would be under water with an ocean rise of few feet. India is going solar throughout rural India. And if they can do it, as California has already done, so can the rest of the U.S.