God will save us from climate change

[Bonam]

Bonam the effect of "marred natural beauty" is subjective I happen to think that Wind generators have their own beauty.

Look, you don't go out into the back country to admire wind generators, you go there to enjoy nature. Do we really want all our majestic mountains covered in spinning metal (or spinning composite)?

And the environmental impact is tiny (I assume your talking about birds and bats running into the blades.

That and their impact on altering wind and climate patterns when built in sufficient numbers.

While more Nuclear should be built it takes years for a new nuclear reactor to be built

Won't ever get built if we don't start.

and if something tiny goes wrong even if it can be fixed there's a large chance the whole thing will be scrapped.

Due to irrational fears, promulgated by organizations that supposedly support green technology, such as Greenpeace.

We should be building multiple sources for our energy demands, focusing to much on one source is what got us in this problem in the first place.

Sure, we should use multiple sources. I don't oppose the use of wind energy or solar energy, they of course should be built, especially when and where economically viable. Solar thermal energy for heating is especially effective, being much more efficient than photovoltaics. Realistically, however, wind cannot provide a large fraction of our energy. Thus, focusing a large fraction of our energy investment on it seems a mistake. Wind and solar can contribute, but if today we decided to make it so that in 20 years, all our energy was produced with zero emissions, the ONLY even remotely realistic way to do that would be to start building hundreds of nuclear reactors.

[TimG]

Subsidies on those things early on are just part of how we have developed technology for many decades.

We are way past the "technology development" stage with wind. There is absolutely no justfication for subsidies at this point because there is little room for improvement.

I dont mind as long theres some sort of sunset clause on them... and the reality is that other energy sources still receive subsidies to this day. Even though some of them have been around for almost a hundred years.

A tiny sum compared to the energy they produce and they are not essential to their economic justification. Take the tiny fossil fuel subsidies away and they still will be used widely. Take the wind power subdidies away and no one would touch it.

Why dont you show me where I said that or admit youre lying through your teeth?

The trouble is you don't understand the implications of your own arguments. If you defend anti-CO2 policies because of side effects then you are saying that all the money wasted is worthwhile. If you disagree with that assessment they you have to state explicitly say anti-CO2 policies are wrong.

[dre]

We are way past the "technology development" stage with wind. There is absolutely no justfication for subsidies at this point because there is little room for improvement.

A tiny sum compared to the energy they produce and they are not essential to their economic justification. Take the tiny fossil fuel subsidies away and they still will be used widely. Take the wind power subdidies away and no one would touch it.

The trouble is you don't understand the implications of your own arguments. If you defend anti-CO2 policies because of side effects then you are saying that all the money wasted is worthwhile. If you disagree with that assessment they you have to state explicitly say anti-CO2 policies are wrong.

We are way past the "technology development" stage with wind. There is absolutely no justfication for subsidies at this point because there is little room for improvement.

Thats just objectively false. Wind energy technology research is at its peak, and not only is lots of research and investment needed to perfect it, but lots is required to allow it to be effectively integrated into our existing energy paradigm. Theres active research in every area from improving the core technologies themselves, to improving storage techniques, improving contruction materials and techniques to make implementation easier and cheaper, to making turbines larger and more efficient.

A tiny sum compared to the energy they produce and they are not essential to their economic justification. Take the tiny fossil fuel subsidies away and they still will be used widely. Take the wind power subdidies away and no one would touch it.

Youre comparing a technology thats in its infancy in terms of capital investment with one thats mature after having trillions of todays dollars pumped into it. Thats sheer scientific fallacy. OF COURSE a developing technology is not going to be on par with a well established technology early on.

You could have made the exact same argument about nuclear energy, based on the fact that for the first few decades it required massive subsidies and was nowhere NEAR competitive with established technologies like coal fire plants.

The trouble is you don't understand the implications of your own arguments. If you defend anti-CO2 policies because of side effects then you are saying that all the money wasted is worthwhile. If you disagree with that assessment they you have to state explicitly say anti-CO2 policies are wrong.

Yet another strawman built on logical fallacy. Iv already cover this extensively. I dont have to approve of the minutia of thousands of different policy proposals to feel that in general they are pushing us in the right direction. I just have to think the aggregate of those policies is better than what were doing before which is essentially nothing... sitting around with our heads in the sand.

[Pliny]

I just have to think the aggregate of those policies is better than what were doing before which is essentially nothing... sitting around with our heads in the sand.

Whose doing that these days?

The general movement is towards doing something. Going overboard by restructuring the global economy is inefficient, political and does not contribute to the resolution of the perceived problem. Rather it will deplete economic resources that enable the capability of us to do anything at all about it.

[dre]

Whose doing that these days?

The general movement is towards doing something. Going overboard by restructuring the global economy is inefficient, political and does not contribute to the resolution of the perceived problem. Rather it will deplete economic resources that enable the capability of us to do anything at all about it.

Thats been what the "sky is falling" crowd has been saying for decades now. I just dont see it happening.

In fact most of our structural economic problems come from our failure over the last 40 years to take energy seriously, and from the massive spiderweb of subsidies and institutional advantages used by status quo energy to isolate themselves from competition.

Wildly fluctuating energy prices are already an impediment to global economic growth and contribute to economic instability and recessions. Take the latest economic meltdown for example, and the huge part our dependence on fossil fuels played on it.

That big slew of forclosures on sub prime loans started during the huge oil price spike in 2006/7. Families saw the cost of things like home heating oil, transportation, and food spike. As a result people who were already living close to the threshold started defaulting on thier loan. In addition, our energy paradigm played a big part in inflating the realestate bubble in the first place. Oil producing nations had a glut of US dollars on their hands as a result of high oil prices, and they dumped a lot of that money back into the US housing market by buying derivitives.

If economics is your concern that you should consider it to be of paramount importance that we expedite progress towards a more sustainable and stable energy supply, and many of the things being invested in today will play an important part of that in the decades to come.

[TimG]

Youre comparing a technology thats in its infancy in terms of capital investment with one thats mature after having trillions of todays dollars pumped into it.

Trillions that was mostly private capital paid from by selling a product in the marketplace. The trouble with your logic is there is no end to the subsidies. If wind power is (as I believe) an ineffective source of power that will be nothing but an expensible bit player for the forseeable future then it will never be able to get off the subsidies by your definition. If you disagree how many trillions would have to be wasted on wind subsidies before you would agree that wind power is never going to cut it?

You could have made the exact same argument about nuclear energy, based on the fact that for the first few decades it required massive subsidies and was nowhere NEAR competitive with established technologies like coal fire plants.

Even then the subsidies per KHh produced are tiny compared to wind power.

I dont have to approve of the minutia of thousands of different policy proposals to feel that in general they are pushing us in the right direction.

Which means you are in favour of (or at least do not opposed) wasting trillions on dumb policies just because they might have useful side effects. If you care about changing the mix of energy sources then those are the policies that you should be calling for. Supporting bad policies because of the side effects is crazy.

[TimG]

Wildly fluctuating energy prices are already an impediment to global economic growth and contribute to economic instability and recessions. Take the latest economic meltdown for example, and the huge part our dependence on fossil fuels played on it.

If you actually cared about such things you would not support increasing the price of electricity with useless renewables. Oil is the only real risk at this point and we need cheap electricity to make alternatives to oil in the transport sector viable. Edited November 15, 2010 by TimG

[dre]

If you actually cared about such things you would not support increasing the price of electricity with useless renewables. Oil is the only real risk at this point and we need cheap electricity to make alternatives to oil in the transport sector viable.

If you actually cared about such things you would not support increasing the price of electricity with useless renewables.

I dont subscribe to your "useless renewables" religion. You have nothing but personal opinions, and the way you describe renewable energy with such contempt just shows personal bias. It means not one god damn thing to me, and your fake boogeymen dont frighten me a bit. Having said that I support energy development across the board. Nuclear, clean coal, hydro, solar, wind. And there should be research in all the various alternatives. Some of the money will turn out to be wasted and some of these technologies will die. Thats just how tech development works, and always has.

Trillions that was mostly private capital paid from by selling a product in the marketplace.

Sorry but todays energy paradigm has received massive public subsidies and benefited from public research as well.

If you disagree how many trillions would have to be wasted on wind subsidies before you would agree that wind power is never going to cut it?

Spare me the bullshit hyperbole. Show me evidence that trillions is or will be spent on wind subsidies. Your emperor is buck naked and has a small penis.

If you actually cared about such things you would not support increasing the price of electricity with useless renewables.

More hyperbole and misrepresentation of my position. Your dishonesty is embarassing quite frankly... You dont see me creating fake strawmen of YOUR position... which would be rather easy because youre a luddite with almost no understanding how technologies emerge.

Even then the subsidies per KHh produced are tiny compared to wind power.

Such horseshit. Take nuclear energy for example... Before the private sector ever built a SINGLE PLANT or sold a SINGLE KW of electricity governments and public funded projects had developed the technology to the point where it was already proven and working. They even built many of the first plants and tested them. In fact they STILL finance most of the plants. And now the nuclear industry wants the public to pay billions to process or store spent fuel.

Which means you are in favour of (or at least do not opposed) wasting trillions on dumb policies just because they might have useful side effects. If you care about changing the mix of energy sources then those are the policies that you should be calling for. Supporting bad policies because of the side effects is crazy.

If you could run automobiles on horseshit and hyperbole you could single-handedly save the world.

[TimG]

Sorry but todays energy paradigm has received massive public subsidies and benefited from public research as well.

Would stop mixing up R&D with production subsidies. As soon as the goverment starts mandating the deployment of a technology it has moved beyond R&D and into production subsidies. All of the subsidies that nuclear received in the early days were for a few experimental reactors. The roll out of nuclear power did not happen until it clear that there would be a ROI.

As for relative subsidies:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121055427930584069.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks

An even better way to tell the story is by how much taxpayer money is dispensed per unit of energy, so the costs are standardized. For electricity generation, the EIA concludes that solar energy is subsidized to the tune of $24.34 per megawatt hour, wind $23.37 and "clean coal" $29.81. By contrast, normal coal receives 44 cents, natural gas a mere quarter, hydroelectric about 67 cents and nuclear power $1.59.

...

The same study also looked at federal subsidies for non-electrical energy production, such as for fuel. It found that ethanol and biofuels receive $5.72 per British thermal unit of energy produced. That compares to $2.82 for solar and $1.35 for refined coal, but only three cents per BTU for natural gas and other petroleum liquids.

IOW, wind and solar receive nearly 15x the subsidies of nuclear.

For liquid fuels the biofuels received nearly 200x the subsidies given to petroleum.

These levels of subsidies are insane and ultimately pointless because these technologies have fundemental limitations which will ensure they will likely never be viable energy sources even if the price of oil goes through the roof.

One way or another nuclear, coal and hydro will be the primary energy sources of the future no matter how many billions governments throw at the "magical energy fairies".

Edited November 15, 2010 by TimG

[dre]

Would stop mixing up R&D with production subsidies. As soon as the goverment starts mandating the deployment of a technology it has moved beyond R&D and into production subsidies. All of the subsidies that nuclear received in the early days were for a few experimental reactors. The roll out of nuclear power did not happen until it clear that there would be a ROI.

As for relative subsidies:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121055427930584069.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks

IOW, wind and solar receive nearly 15x the subsidies of nuclear.

For liquid fuels the biofuels received nearly 200x the subsidies given to petroleum.

These levels of subsidies are insane and ultimately pointless because these technologies have fundemental limitations which will ensure they will likely never be viable energy sources even if the price of oil goes through the roof.

One way or another nuclear, coal and hydro will be the primary energy sources of the future no matter how many billions governments throw at the "magical energy fairies".

IOW, wind and solar receive nearly 15x the subsidies of nuclear.

For liquid fuels the biofuels received nearly 200x the subsidies given to petroleum.

Or COURSE! Wind and solar are in their R&D phase and petroleum and nuclear are relatively mature. Nuclear development early on was 100% subsidized!.

The difference is petroleum is still recieving subsidies (and zillions of dollars worth of government action) 100 years after its inception.

In any case... I share your concern. If I was in charge there would be a sunset clause on subsidies and technologies would only qualify for them for a certain ammount of time, after which they would either have to shit or get off the pot.

I actually promote completely cost internalization and a total end to subsidies. That would mean that energy companies would have to absorb the ENTIRE cost of their activities and pass those costs onto consumers. No companies would get ANY subsidies and companies would be liable for all of the consequences related to their products. Its a tough sell though because it would "feel" to consumers like prices were going way up, because theyd be paying the full price at the pump or meter instead of paying part of it though taxation.

The problem is you arent programmed to debate me because youre stuck on this wierd false dichotomy. You insist on casting me as some sort of hippy, bent on destroying the world economy and lumping me in with some sort of massive liberal conspiracy that exists only in your head. Thats your loss and your problem, not mine.

If you had substantive policy ideas then Id honestly evaluate them. But until that happens when you ask me to evaluate the effect that AGW has had on energy policy all I can do is choose between that and the status quo, and from my perspective as a guy that lives this industry 9-5 every day for the last ten years its a pretty easy choice. Up until the 90's we had almost TOTAL APATHY on the part of the public with respect to energy. Now theres a relatively consistant focus on it and that directly relates to investment. Governments are more interested in it, and private investors are more interested in it. Theres more public resources engaged, and more private resources as well.

Do I support the policies? SORT OF!. If I was in charge things would look different but I still think the net effect has been positive, even though resources were misdirected and not always used efficiently.

I bet you would actually be supporter of a policy that I crafted. Id go ALL IN. Some people think that terrorism or muslims are the number one threat, but I think energy availability is. Id build hundreds of clean-coal and nuclear plants, and Id keep investing in emerging technologies at the same time. I WOULD subsidize some production but only "pilot projects" and Id have a firm sunset clause on all energy subsidies. Id limit subsidies to technologies in the R&D phrase followed by a small window for production subsidies then its sink or swim.

I would also take into account that theres no need for a one-size-fits-all solution. Energy policy should be determined based on geography because at its root energy is a natural resource. In some cases wind energy makes sense, and in some cases solar energy makes sense. Countries rich in coal in gas probably arent gonna build many nuclear plants, and countries like Canada probably wont build many solar plants... Hyrdo-electric energy works great in region X but not in region Y. A successful technology doesnt need to "replace" any other technology it just needs to play a constructive part, even if its small.

Edited November 15, 2010 by dre

[Bonam]

Or COURSE! Wind and solar are in their R&D phase and petroleum and nuclear are relatively mature. Nuclear development early on was 100% subsidized!.

Some of your points on this topic have merit but you really are drastically misinformed on this. Of the technologies you mention: wind, solar, petroleum, and nuclear, it is nuclear that can benefit by far the most from continued R&D. There are so many innovations left to be fully developed in the world of nuclear energy: reactors that burn nuclear waste, thorium-burning reactors, compact self-contained nuclear energy sources are but a few examples. We are tapping only a tiny fraction of the potential of nuclear energy. With just a bit of an R&D push, we could be producing far more nuclear power, with reactors that are physically incapable of melting down, and getting rid of ALL long life radioactive waste in the process. That's not to mention the vast untapped potential of fission-fusion hybrid reactors, designs for which CURRENT achievements in fusion research already produce sufficient fusion to work (the fusion reaction is used only as a neutron source).

In comparison, research in wind energy will yield... a turbine blade that is made of a material that is 1% lighter and an airfoil shape that is 0.1 % more efficient. Maybe a bearing with 0.1% less friction. Yay.

Which is the "mature" technology here? We have only begun to play with nuclear, our knowledge of this technology is as "mature" as our knowledge of wind power was 2000 years ago when the Greeks first started using windmills.

Edited November 15, 2010 by Bonam

[dre]

Some of your points on this topic have merit but you really are drastically misinformed on this. Of the technologies you mention: wind, solar, petroleum, and nuclear, it is nuclear that can benefit by far the most from continued R&D. There are so many innovations left to be fully developed in the world of nuclear energy: reactors that burn nuclear waste, thorium-burning reactors, compact self-contained nuclear energy sources are but a few examples. We are tapping only a tiny fraction of the potential of nuclear energy. With just a bit of an R&D push, we could be producing far more nuclear power, with reactors that are physically incapable of melting down, and getting rid of ALL long life radioactive waste in the process. That's not to mention the vast untapped potential of fission-fusion hybrid reactors, designs for which CURRENT achievements in fusion research already produce sufficient fusion to work (the fusion reaction is used only as a neutron source).

In comparison, research in wind energy will yield... a turbine blade that is made of a material that is 1% lighter and an airfoil shape that is 0.1 % more efficient. Maybe a bearing with 0.1% less friction. Yay.

Some of your points on this topic have merit but you really are drastically misinformed on this. Of the technologies you mention: wind, solar, petroleum, and nuclear, it is nuclear that can benefit by far the most from continued R&D.

What evidence do you have for that conclusion? The cost of wind energy has rapidly fallen over the last 2 decades as a result of capital investment but the cost of nuclear has remained more or less static or in some cases increased.

But we dont have to dwell on that point because Im all for nuclear research as well. In fact... If I was charge Id spend a shitload of money on that, and Id build a whole pile of modern reactors. I actually believe this is going to happen quite soon and I support it, and as a matter of fact I have taken a financial position that BETS on this.

But Id keep developing other technologies as well until I was pretty sure there was little chance of viability. And quite frankly anyone that thinks this is the case for wind and solar is an idiot because the price per installed KW has been so senstitive to investment and has come down so fast. Based on current trends the cost of these technologies will intersect with the cost of "status quo" technologies within the next three decades.

In comparison, research in wind energy will yield... a turbine blade that is made of a material that is 1% lighter and an airfoil shape that is 0.1 % more efficient. Maybe a bearing with 0.1% less friction. Yay.

You could have said the same thing about windmills 30 years ago yet capital investment has resulted in a EXPONENTIAL decrease in cost of wind energy. But you arent just talking about the core technologies youre talking about improvement apon the thousands of processes involved in the delivery of any technology. Everything from construction techniques and automation, to deployment strategy, to scale of production and economy. Both wind and solar are in a state of flux and the economics are constantly changing. Its flat out unscientific to dismiss them.

Edited November 15, 2010 by dre

[TimG]

Or COURSE! Wind and solar are in their R&D phase and petroleum and nuclear are relatively mature. Nuclear development early on was 100% subsidized!.

Wind is as mature as it is going to get. The problem with wind is energy density: it simply takes too much capital equipment and land to exploit a relatively small amount of power. These capital and land requirements cannot be reduced much from where they are now. Solar has the same issue.

In any case... I share your concern. If I was in charge there would be a sunset clause on subsidies and technologies would only qualify for them for a certain ammount of time, after which they would either have to shit or get off the pot.

Can please explain exactly what criteria you would use? What is happening now is an endess stream of projects being guaranteed subsidies for 20-30 years. What would have to happen to convince you that no new projects should be given subsidies?

No companies would get ANY subsidies and companies would be liable for all of the consequences related to their products.

Companies are already liable for damages (look at BP). The trouble is you want to give tort lawyers a blank check in the hope that the companies will be drowned under a wave of frivious lawsuits. If you have specific "hidden costs" then they should be addressed directly with government regulations - not by tort lawyers.

Its a tough sell though because it would "feel" to consumers like prices were going way up, because theyd be paying the full price at the pump or meter instead of paying part of it though taxation.

I think you grossly overestimate the real "hidden costs" of fossil fuels.

If you had substantive policy ideas then Id honestly evaluate them.

I have told you a number of times: forget about CO2, focus on peak oil. That means we need a reliable and cheap electricity supply. This means build coal, gas, hydro and nuclear. Fund pilot projects for new technologies with promise (e.g. thermal solar in deserts). But no production subsidies.

Lastly, my objection to subsidies would less if the public/ratepayer got a share of the profits from the project. i.e. when the government builds hydro it owns the facility and all of the profits go to government. If the government is going pay people to build wind power then the public should get a share of the profits that is proportional to share of the money contributed by the public. The trouble is this model would never work for wind or solar because there are no profits to be had with these technologies because the cost of inputs exceeds the value of the output.

Up until the 90's we had almost TOTAL APATHY on the part of the public with respect to energy. Now theres a relatively consistant focus on it and that directly relates to investment. Governments are more interested in it, and private investors are more interested in it. Theres more public resources engaged, and more private resources as well.

I will have to agree - a lot of the SmartGrid money in the US is going to routine system upgrades that were desperately needed. However, a lot more good could be done if the money going to renewable energy was simply spent on grid upgrades. i.e. upgrade the grid first. Worry about renewables when they are shown to be viable.

A successful technology doesnt need to "replace" any other technology it just needs to play a constructive part, even if its small.

There has to be a positive ROI. i.e. the value the energy produced must exceed the input costs. If large subsidies are required then the energy source can never be more than a bit player and the money is better spent elsewhere.

[dre]

Wind is as mature as it is going to get. The problem with wind is energy density: it simply takes too much capital equipment and land to exploit a relatively small amount of power. These capital and land requirements cannot be reduced much from where they are now. Solar has the same issue.

Can please explain exactly what criteria you would use? What is happening now is an endess stream of projects being guaranteed subsidies for 20-30 years. What would have to happen to convince you that no new projects should be given subsidies?

Companies are already liable for damages (look at BP). The trouble is you want to give tort lawyers a blank check in the hope that the companies will be drowned under a wave of frivious lawsuits. If you have specific "hidden costs" then they should be addressed directly with government regulations - not by tort lawyers.

I think you grossly overestimate the real "hidden costs" of fossil fuels.

I have told you a number of times: forget about CO2, focus on peak oil. That means we need a reliable and cheap electricity supply. This means build coal, gas, hydro and nuclear. Fund pilot projects for new technologies with promise (e.g. thermal solar in deserts). But no production subsidies.

Lastly, my objection to subsidies would less if the public/ratepayer got a share of the profits from the project. i.e. when the government builds hydro it owns the facility and all of the profits go to government. If the government is going pay people to build wind power then the public should get a share of the profits that is proportional to share of the money contributed by the public. The trouble is this model would never work for wind or solar because there are no profits to be had with these technologies because the cost of inputs exceeds the value of the output.

I will have to agree - a lot of the SmartGrid money in the US is going to routine system upgrades that were desperately needed. However, a lot more good could be done if the money going to renewable energy was simply spent on grid upgrades. i.e. upgrade the grid first. Worry about renewables when they are shown to be viable.

There has to be a positive ROI. i.e. the value the energy produced must exceed the input costs. If large subsidies are required then the energy source can never be more than a bit player and the money is better spent elsewhere.

What would have to happen to convince you that no new projects should be given subsidies?

I already explained that. I would abolish ALL subsidies in conjuction with a policy of cost internalization.

I think you grossly overestimate the real "hidden costs" of fossil fuels

I think YOU underestimate it. Imagine trying to put a real price on the totality of western entanglements with oil producing nations? Its in the trillions.

There has to be a positive ROI. i.e. the value the energy produced must exceed the input costs.

Nope. Technologies only have a positive ROI after a certain ammount of capital investment. Every single technology in history has undergone a period of development where there was no profitability. Every single one.

The trouble is this model would never work for wind or solar because there are no profits to be had with these technologies because the cost of inputs exceeds the value of the output.

Who says theres no profits to be had?. Rufus the stunt-bum? And what evidence did you provide for that assertion?. Oh yeah... none. Theres hundreds of private sector companies that profit from selling solar technology.

[TimG]

I already explained that. I would abolish ALL subsidies in conjunction with a policy of cost internalization.

I agree with getting rid of all subsidies in principle but your call for "cost internalization" sounds like nothing but an excuse to slap arbitrary taxes on fossil fuels based on whatever unquantifiable harms the eco-nuts are complaining about this week. If you want to increase taxes on fossil fuels then say that. Don't play word games which you know will simply lead to just as many arguments.

That said: given the fact that they will never be true "cost internalization" (largely because no one will ever agree on what that means). What would it take to convince you that solar and wind are a pointless waste of money?

I can give you the reverse: if people start to deploy these technologies without any subsidy then I will admit I am wrong. Trouble is I can never find this out as long as market expects subsidies.

I think YOU underestimate it. Imagine trying to put a real price on the totality of western entanglements with oil producing nations? Its in the trillions.

Companies are only responsible for things they could reasonably do something to avoid. Trade politics is not their fault. Even then, rare earths and lithium mean that renewables won't change this - only shift the focus to a different set of corrupt regimes.

Technologies only have a positive ROI after a certain ammount of capital investment. Every single technology in history has undergone a period of development where there was no profitability. Every single one.

And I saying we are way past the point where such subsidies are justified given the maturity of wind and solar PV.

Who says theres no profits to be had?. Rufus the stunt-bum? And what evidence did you provide for that assertion?. Oh yeah... none. Theres hundreds of private sector companies that profit from selling solar technology.

And every one of them would go bankrupt if the government did not prop up the market. Their "profits" are nothing but a transfer of wealth from the middle class class to rich investors, Edited November 15, 2010 by TimG

[Oleg Bach]

He doesn't. Which right there is proof of his infinite wisdom

God is made manifiest in human intelligence - at present there is no proof or evidence of gods existance on earth...

[GostHacked]

Wind is as mature as it is going to get. The problem with wind is energy density: it simply takes too much capital equipment and land to exploit a relatively small amount of power. These capital and land requirements cannot be reduced much from where they are now. Solar has the same issue.

Absolutely not. Wind gentereated power is getting better and it's changing already. Large window farms simply need not be. A much smaller more efficient ways of wind generation are already here.

I have told you a number of times: forget about CO2, focus on peak oil. That means we need a reliable and cheap electricity supply. This means build coal, gas, hydro and nuclear. Fund pilot projects for new technologies with promise (e.g. thermal solar in deserts). But no production subsidies.

Then a hybrid solar/wind solution for your own home is the way to go. No need to depend on the already taxed energy system. Self sufficient and when the lights go out for everyone else, you can still play Xbox.

Coal gas and nuclear still result in some form of waste. Aside from the obvious manufacturing pollution that would occurr to make these solar/wind generators (smaller scale for home use), during their life span they would not contribute any pollution whatsoever to the environment. Also the materials can be recycled. They also require little maintenance, and it's much cheaper to repair and replace one of these than any other kind of energy plant.

[dre]

I agree with getting rid of all subsidies in principle but your call for "cost internalization" sounds like nothing but an excuse to slap arbitrary taxes on fossil fuels based on whatever unquantifiable harms the eco-nuts are complaining about this week. If you want to increase taxes on fossil fuels then say that. Don't play word games which you know will simply lead to just as many arguments.

That said: given the fact that they will never be true "cost internalization" (largely because no one will ever agree on what that means). What would it take to convince you that solar and wind are a pointless waste of money?

I can give you the reverse: if people start to deploy these technologies without any subsidy then I will admit I am wrong. Trouble is I can never find this out as long as market expects subsidies.

Companies are only responsible for things they could reasonably do something to avoid. Trade politics is not their fault. Even then, rare earths and lithium mean that renewables won't change this - only shift the focus to a different set of corrupt regimes.

And I saying we are way past the point where such subsidies are justified given the maturity of wind and solar PV.

And every one of them would go bankrupt if the government did not prop up the market. Their "profits" are nothing but a transfer of wealth from the middle class class to rich investors,

And I saying we are way past the point where such subsidies are justified given the maturity of wind and solar PV.

Thats just objectively false, no matter how many times you say it. In terms of real capital investment wind and solar are both in their infancy and in their R&D stage. Investment is still bringing down costs both in terms of cost per installed KW, and generated KW.

I can give you the reverse: if people start to deploy these technologies without any subsidy then I will admit I am wrong. Trouble is I can never find this out as long as market expects subsidies.

Problem is that you only want to hold wind and solar to that standard, but you dont seem to have any problem with the fact every nuclear plant that gets built is heavily subsidized. This sort of abject hypocracy betrays some sort of wierd personal bias with no basis in reality.

[TimG]

Problem is that you only want to hold wind and solar to that standard, but you dont seem to have any problem with the fact every nuclear plant that gets built is heavily subsidized.

The subsidy per KWh is tiny and it is clear that nuclear power produces more wealth than it consumes. So I can live with the nuclear subsidies. Wind and solar are money pits that consume more wealth than they create. More importantly, there is a no sign that those technologies are going to be viable without subsidies any time soon.

You also did not answer my question: what will take to convince you that wind and solar are dead end technologies?

Edited November 15, 2010 by TimG

[dre]

The subsidy per KWh is tiny and it is clear that nuclear power produces more wealth than it consumes. So I can live with the nuclear subsidies. Wind and solar are money pits that consume more wealth than they create. More importantly, there is a no sign that those technologies are going to be viable without subsidies any time soon.

You also did not answer my question: what will take to convince you that wind and solar are dead end technologies?

I already explained that. R&D should continue until it stops signicantly pushing down prices, and no significant breakthoughs are being produced. Then there should be a few years of running subsidized pilot projects, and after that the technology should have to sink or swim on its own merits. Provided of course the rules are applied evenly across the board, and other technologies like nuclear, coal, and gas are treated the same.

The subsidy per KWh is tiny and it is clear that nuclear power produces more wealth than it consumes. So I can live with the nuclear subsidies

Without subsidies we would probably NEVER build another nuclear plant. The private sector wants nothing to do with it unless the government will provide funding or loan guarantees up front. They want the public to tackle the waste issues as well. Thats why they havent sold a single plant in North America for 30 years.

If you apply the same litmus test to Nuclear that you apply to wind and solar (no subsidies) then there would never be another Nuclear plant built EVER except in countries that have no coal and gas.

Edited November 15, 2010 by dre

[TimG]

he private sector wants nothing to do with it unless the government will provide funding or loan guarantees up front.

Loan guarantees are not a subsidy. They are an insurance against regulatory obstructionism (i.e. the guarantees ensure the government is on the hook if the government chooses to delay the project). If we had an environment with regulatory certainty we would see the need for loan guarantees disappear.

They want the public to tackle the waste issues as well.

That is because the public has to decide what the operators are allowed to do with the waste. Again the issue here is the companies need to be given options. Once they have those options they can be expected to pay for it. It is not the fault of the nuclear industry as long as the public waffles on providing a reasonable solution.

[waldo]

Take the tiny fossil fuel subsidies away and they still will be used widely.

that's quite the, uhhh... 'wrinkle' you used by quoting that WSJ article and playing off so-called "standardized costs" by emphasizing per unit of energy subsidization. Of course, that charade completely obfuscates the huge subsidies fossil-fuels receive, even today... what you call, "tiny". That same EIA report offers a breakout on Production Subsidies and Support - here: Tiny fossil fuel subsidies?

[TimG]

that WSJ article and playing off so-called "standardized costs" by emphasizing per unit of energy subsidization.

That is the ONLY measurement that matters. Quoting total subsidies without taking into account the amount of energy produced is nothing but propoganda designed to deceive the uninformed.

[Pliny]

In comparison, research in wind energy will yield... a turbine blade that is made of a material that is 1% lighter and an airfoil shape that is 0.1 % more efficient. Maybe a bearing with 0.1% less friction. Yay.

:lol:

That kind of improvement would be proof of the necessity for increased subsidies.

[GostHacked]

I see my examples of wind power solutions were overlooked.