First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply Renewable energy is becoming so cheap the US will meet Paris commitments even if Trump withdraws
21953 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 7/22/17

runec wrote:

Putting aside that this is a study on future investments from the brokerage firm that brought us the global financial crisis and not, you know, climate scientists:

I'm curious as to how you square "market forces will save us from our mistakes" with "coal should be saved despite failing due to market forces".


Your misunderstanding. Coal is on its way out like the horse and carriage after cars became popular. We don't need to have the government step in and kill it quicker than its naturally dying. No one will seek futures in the coal industry and it will slowly fade into history. The only thing that is keeping coal alive is that we need something that can produce huge amounts of reliable power during the daylight hours and we are too scared to use nuclear power.
runec 
36311 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/22/17

Rujikin wrote:
Your misunderstanding. Coal is on its way out like the horse and carriage after cars became popular. We don't need to have the government step in and kill it quicker than its naturally dying. No one will seek futures in the coal industry and it will slowly fade into history. The only thing that is keeping coal alive is that we need something that can produce huge amounts of reliable power during the daylight hours and we are too scared to use nuclear power.


My point was that the government is stepping in and trying to prop it up for longer than its naturally dying. Coal, Manufacturing Jobs(tm), etc are all being used as political chips to string along dying or already dead industries for votes. It wouldn't be such a problem if the government stepped out of it entirely and let the industry wind down and die. But Trump ( like many before him ) sold those voters on the myth that the jobs they, their parents or grandparents had can actually come back.

Even if every other energy source on Earth suddenly failed and we needed nothing but coal it still wouldn't bring back all of the lost jobs. You only need a dozen guys to strip a mountain for coal these days. Coal investment is one of the absolute worst areas of infrastructure to invest in and get a job return. Technology has simply made it far to efficient now.
37130 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 7/23/17 , edited 7/23/17

Rujikin wrote:

http://archive.is/jbnjd

Research analysts at Morgan Stanley believe that renewable energy like solar and wind power are hurtling towards a level of ubiquity where not even politics can hinder them. Renewable energy is simply becoming the cheapest option, fast. Basic economics, the analysts say, suggest that the US will exceed its commitments in the Paris agreement regardless of whether or not president Donald Trump withdraws, as he’s stated he will.
“We project that by 2020, renewables will be the cheapest form of new-power generation across the globe,” with the exception of a few countries in Southeast Asia, the Morgan Stanley analysts said in a report published Thursday.
“By our forecasts, in most cases favorable renewables economics rather than government policy will be the primary driver of changes to utilities’ carbon emissions levels,” they wrote. “For example, notwithstanding president Trump’s stated intention to withdraw the US from the Paris climate accord, we expect the US to exceed the Paris commitment of a 26-28% reduction in its 2005-level carbon emissions by 2020."


So let me see if I understand this right. Donald Trump was full of shit when he said this:


The bottom line is that the Paris accord is very unfair at the highest level to the United States. Further, while the current agreement effectively blocks the development of clean coal in America, which it does. And the mines are starting to open up, having a big opening in two weeks, Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, so many places. A big opening of a brand, new mine. It’s unheard of. For many, many years that hasn’t happened.


and prior public investments in expansion of solar and wind energy generation comport with the dictates of "basic economics"? Basically, that even from a "basic economics" perspective Kentucky, West Virginia, and so forth should be moving toward making parts for setting up windmills and solar panels while researching improved batteries?
5659 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 7/23/17
Did my electric eel theory worked out ?
25752 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Atlanta, GA, USA
Offline
Posted 7/23/17

BlueOni wrote:
and prior public investments in expansion of solar and wind energy generation comport with the dictates of "basic economics"? Basically, that even from a "basic economics" perspective Kentucky, West Virginia, and so forth should be moving toward making parts for setting up windmills and solar panels while researching improved batteries?


No, because solar & wind energy getting cheaper means nothing if something like natural gas extraction becomes even cheaper.

Batteries aren't the only things that improve. We don't really have cause to celebrate if we forced it ahead of the curve temporarily at heavy cost to our people.

I mean, if solar & wind become the neatest things since sliced bread, then I guess we were right all along. But, if it just ends up dying shortly and we start using natural gas, nuclear, whatever else that becomes efficient, then I question why we pushed solar & wind, other than to line the pockets of the dudes in that industry at the expense of everyone else.
5659 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 7/23/17 , edited 7/23/17

Kavalion wrote:


BlueOni wrote:
and prior public investments in expansion of solar and wind energy generation comport with the dictates of "basic economics"? Basically, that even from a "basic economics" perspective Kentucky, West Virginia, and so forth should be moving toward making parts for setting up windmills and solar panels while researching improved batteries?


No, because solar & wind energy getting cheaper means nothing if something like natural gas extraction becomes even cheaper.

Batteries aren't the only things that improve. We don't really have cause to celebrate if we forced it ahead of the curve temporarily at heavy cost to our people.

I mean, if solar & wind become the neatest things since sliced bread, then I guess we were right all along. But, if it just ends up dying shortly and we start using natural gas, nuclear, whatever else that becomes efficient, then I question why we pushed solar & wind, other than to line the pockets of the dudes in that industry at the expense of everyone else.


I propose the electric eel power generator. It uses a transport pump with ATP to move the ions from one place to the other. I propose using pressure and filter to move the ions. Of course the pressure would requires energy source, whether it would produce more energy than input or there is an alternative method is still in debate. This is a rough draft I came up with.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0HNQNu4iyM

https://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-nano-sphere-from-carbon-atoms-isolated-on-white-background-there-is-a-clipping-path-50117686.jpg
1780 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / US
Offline
Posted 7/23/17

runec wrote:


Rujikin wrote:
Your misunderstanding. Coal is on its way out like the horse and carriage after cars became popular. We don't need to have the government step in and kill it quicker than its naturally dying. No one will seek futures in the coal industry and it will slowly fade into history. The only thing that is keeping coal alive is that we need something that can produce huge amounts of reliable power during the daylight hours and we are too scared to use nuclear power.


My point was that the government is stepping in and trying to prop it up for longer than its naturally dying. Coal, Manufacturing Jobs(tm), etc are all being used as political chips to string along dying or already dead industries for votes. It wouldn't be such a problem if the government stepped out of it entirely and let the industry wind down and die. But Trump ( like many before him ) sold those voters on the myth that the jobs they, their parents or grandparents had can actually come back.

Even if every other energy source on Earth suddenly failed and we needed nothing but coal it still wouldn't bring back all of the lost jobs. You only need a dozen guys to strip a mountain for coal these days. Coal investment is one of the absolute worst areas of infrastructure to invest in and get a job return. Technology has simply made it far to efficient now.



Seconded because of how important it is to realize this

I'm studying engineering. I would describe my job, in it's most basic form, as making your job obsolete. The problem is that were getting really good at that and a lot of jobs are becoming obsolete. But society isn't moving fast enough to either make not obsolete jobs or account for there being less jobs in general with a larger population in general.
25752 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Atlanta, GA, USA
Offline
Posted 7/23/17

fredreload wrote:
I propose the electric eel power generator. It uses a transport pump with ATP to move the ions from one place to the other. I propose using pressure and filter to move the ions. Of course the pressure would requires energy source, whether it would produce more energy than input or there is an alternative method is still in debate. This is a rough draft I came up with.


Sounds great, but won't it be expensive to keep the eels alive and producing? I like that we can eat them and power our own bodies, too, though. All in one power source!

But yeah, there could be great variety in energy tech, but it's much more difficult if the government taxes your money and gives it to your direct competitors (while getting campaign contributions from those competitors). Just a scam.
37130 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 7/23/17 , edited 7/23/17

Kavalion wrote:

No, because solar & wind energy getting cheaper means nothing if something like natural gas extraction becomes even cheaper.

Batteries aren't the only things that improve. We don't really have cause to celebrate if we forced it ahead of the curve temporarily at heavy cost to our people.

I mean, if solar & wind become the neatest things since sliced bread, then I guess we were right all along. But, if it just ends up dying shortly and we start using natural gas, nuclear, whatever else that becomes efficient, then I question why we pushed solar & wind, other than to line the pockets of the dudes in that industry at the expense of everyone else.


Yes, natural gas's increased presence is also a big factor in coal's decline and is certainly more economical, but we've got the OP and Morgan Stanley basically presenting projections that investments in renewable energy were sagacious, that they're the proper direction moving forward, and that they're going to pay big dividends very soon. Are they wrong?
5659 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 7/23/17

Kavalion wrote:


fredreload wrote:
I propose the electric eel power generator. It uses a transport pump with ATP to move the ions from one place to the other. I propose using pressure and filter to move the ions. Of course the pressure would requires energy source, whether it would produce more energy than input or there is an alternative method is still in debate. This is a rough draft I came up with.


Sounds great, but won't it be expensive to keep the eels alive and producing? I like that we can eat them and power our own bodies, too, though. All in one power source!

But yeah, there could be great variety in energy tech, but it's much more difficult if the government taxes your money and gives it to your direct competitors (while getting campaign contributions from those competitors). Just a scam.


Right, you are not squeezing the eels lol , the filter method I mentioned would be using graphene filters that would only allow ions to pass through the artificial transport channels.

Right, some of the great ideas never made it to the market for this reason I think. How the government does it is beyond my control and it's not like the government has the ability to read through research papers and tells which method is better. I wouldn't know how to deal with this case, but it's a good idea you brought it up
21953 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 7/23/17

BlueOni wrote:


Rujikin wrote:

http://archive.is/jbnjd

Research analysts at Morgan Stanley believe that renewable energy like solar and wind power are hurtling towards a level of ubiquity where not even politics can hinder them. Renewable energy is simply becoming the cheapest option, fast. Basic economics, the analysts say, suggest that the US will exceed its commitments in the Paris agreement regardless of whether or not president Donald Trump withdraws, as he’s stated he will.
“We project that by 2020, renewables will be the cheapest form of new-power generation across the globe,” with the exception of a few countries in Southeast Asia, the Morgan Stanley analysts said in a report published Thursday.
“By our forecasts, in most cases favorable renewables economics rather than government policy will be the primary driver of changes to utilities’ carbon emissions levels,” they wrote. “For example, notwithstanding president Trump’s stated intention to withdraw the US from the Paris climate accord, we expect the US to exceed the Paris commitment of a 26-28% reduction in its 2005-level carbon emissions by 2020."


So let me see if I understand this right. Donald Trump was full of shit when he said this:


The bottom line is that the Paris accord is very unfair at the highest level to the United States. Further, while the current agreement effectively blocks the development of clean coal in America, which it does. And the mines are starting to open up, having a big opening in two weeks, Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, so many places. A big opening of a brand, new mine. It’s unheard of. For many, many years that hasn’t happened.


and prior public investments in expansion of solar and wind energy generation comport with the dictates of "basic economics"? Basically, that even from a "basic economics" perspective Kentucky, West Virginia, and so forth should be moving toward making parts for setting up windmills and solar panels while researching improved batteries?


You guys just want to attack Trump at every turn don't you.

1) When old mines dry up we have to open up new ones
2) Our existing infrastructure is dependent on coal and its better to burn "clean coal" than the same old dirty coal we have been using for a century.
3) Renewables have a problem with not providing power when you need, except for hydro. California is having issues with energy during peak times because they went too renewable with little backup
4) We could replace coal with nuclear but people are too uneducated/brainwashed about nuclear power and protest the permanent solution to coal plants.
5) Coal is necessary for more than just burning for steam.
6) We have a lot of the worlds supply of coal and developing countries either have to choose nuclear or coal power for stable power generation:

37130 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 7/23/17 , edited 7/23/17

Rujikin wrote:

You guys just want to attack Trump at every turn don't you.

1) When old mines dry up we have to open up new ones
2) Our existing infrastructure is dependent on coal and its better to burn "clean coal" than the same old dirty coal we have been using for a century.
3) Renewables have a problem with not providing power when you need, except for hydro. California is having issues with energy during peak times because they went too renewable with little backup
4) We could replace coal with nuclear but people are too uneducated/brainwashed about nuclear power and protest the permanent solution to coal plants.
5) Coal is necessary for more than just burning for steam.
6) We have a lot of the worlds supply of coal and developing countries either have to choose nuclear or coal power for stable power generation:




You're the one saying it. You posted a thread indicating projections that, by 2020, renewable energy would be the hot place for people to invest. That means Donald Trump would be wrong to try to double down on investment in coal (90% of it is used for energy generation in the US), and instead would do better to transition away from it as soon as possible to keep up.

You said it, not me. You clearly want Trump to invest in renewables given these projections (I don't think he will given his previous rhetoric and actions), and you clearly think he'll have the money to do so by abandoning the Paris accord, and you clearly think that these projections indicate the US will be okay by the Paris accord's standards even with its absence from the pact, but you have also indicated he was wrong to try to redouble on coal investment with the projections you're using to justify his withdrawal.
25752 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Atlanta, GA, USA
Offline
Posted 7/23/17

BlueOni wrote:
Yes, natural gas's increased presence is also a big factor in coal's decline and is certainly more economical, but we've got the OP and Morgan Stanley basically presenting projections that investments in renewable energy were sagacious, that they're the proper direction moving forward, and that they're going to pay big dividends very soon. Are they wrong?


What would make them wrong? If the companies with heavy investment somehow didn't gain control of the markets and turn a profit while their competitors are still investing in research?
25752 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Atlanta, GA, USA
Offline
Posted 7/23/17

BlueOni wrote:
You clearly want Trump to invest in renewables given these projections


That doesn't sound laissez-faire. I don't think the political divide is between different socialists deciding what to invest in, is it?
21953 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 7/23/17 , edited 7/23/17

BlueOni wrote:


Rujikin wrote:

You guys just want to attack Trump at every turn don't you.

1) When old mines dry up we have to open up new ones
2) Our existing infrastructure is dependent on coal and its better to burn "clean coal" than the same old dirty coal we have been using for a century.
3) Renewables have a problem with not providing power when you need, except for hydro. California is having issues with energy during peak times because they went too renewable with little backup
4) We could replace coal with nuclear but people are too uneducated/brainwashed about nuclear power and protest the permanent solution to coal plants.
5) Coal is necessary for more than just burning for steam.
6) We have a lot of the worlds supply of coal and developing countries either have to choose nuclear or coal power for stable power generation:




You're the one saying it. You posted a thread indicating projections that, by 2020, renewable energy would be the hot place for people to invest. That means Donald Trump would be wrong to try to double down on investment in coal (90% of it is used for energy generation in the US), and instead would do better to transition away from it as soon as possible to keep up.

You said it, not me. You clearly want Trump to invest in renewables given these projections (I don't think he will given his previous rhetoric and actions), and you clearly think he'll have the money to do so by abandoning the Paris accord, and you clearly think that these projections indicate the US will be okay by the Paris accord's standards even with its absence from the pact, but you have also indicated he was wrong to try to redouble on coal investment with the projections you're using to justify his withdrawal.


Why must you guys think in black and white... When you invest you have to spend a large amount of money that will be paid off in 5-30 years and then generate sustainable income. I think with windmills the payoff time is 15-30 years. The long term cost of building new windmills will be cheaper due to not having to buy fuel and only needing to perform maintenance. However current coal plants have mostly paid off their initial build costs and its now revenue - fuel. Windmills also provide most of their power at night when energy is least needed so they aren't a total replacement of coal and neither is solar, they are both too Dependant on uncontrollable variables. They are both part of the solution but neither are the sole solution. The future is mixed energy, until we go full nuclear.

Trump doesn't need to invest in them because they are taking off themselves. Economics will promote those forms of energy far more efficiently than any government incentive. The USA is building a HUGE number of windmills and we will pass the Paris accords without any government intervention. However if you paid attention you would know that renewables only is not reliable. We have to have stable sources of power such as coal or nuclear when the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining. Meaning we have to either keep coal or invest in Nuclear and "environmentalists" seem to prefer coal to nuclear so we might as well get clean coal going.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.