Climate Change - Looking Back

[TimG]

Because people won't buy their bonds anymore, right ?

Yep. Because people have no confidence that the Greek government will pay them back. A direct consequence of unchecked deficit spending. The only unknown about deficit spending is when confidence crumbles and the crash happens. But even with that unknown it is still an objective fact that unchecked deficit spending will end in a crash and it will cause great harm when it does. Edited December 16, 2011 by TimG

[dre]

Credit crunches like the one in Greece are actually a good thing in the long term.

Edited December 16, 2011 by dre

[waldo]

excellent - keep firming up your anti-science pronouncements. Obviously, climate science is grounded in and based upon physical science... your extreme difficulty with science, with physical science, with climate science, is it simply counters your fake skeptic self. Because you can't rely on science to support your denial, you denigrate climate science and any/all scientists engaged in any/all aspects of climate science... you fall back to unverifiable pronouncements of people with a vested interest in promoting a particular view - see charlatans!

So what? All science is based on math too. That does not make all science credible simply because it uses math. Climate science is a field that has no credibility because there are no real experiments that can be conducted to verify the results. Entire theories are developed based on guesswork and are only accepted because the people making a living in the field decide it is in their best interest to believe them to be true. Whether they are true or not is irrelevant.

ah, now... this is the TimG that doesn't come around as much... anymore. Riddle me this - you speak of "in their own best interest". What about the thousands of scientists and hundreds of scientific organizations, academies, institutions, societies, agencies, etc., that have all issued formal statements on AGW/CC... statements that reinforce acceptance of the AGW theory and of mankind's causal tie to GW/CC. What's the, "in the interest of", in these cases then, hey? Try not to make our response so transparently conspiratorial, hey?

as for credibility, you certainly have none - you simply won't accept any manner of empirical evidence - you deny it. Your constant, repeat and ever present fall-back is to puff-up and claim it's all guesswork and that all models are inherently flawed. Of course, in the past, you've rallied the charge whenever the next latest and greatest, "agw killer", has been trumpeted throughout the denialsphere... apparently, you have no qualms with any of the "science" that presumes to support your fake skepticism, hey?

[TimG]

Credit crunches like the one in Greece are actually a good thing in the long term.

It would have been better for Greeks if they had a government that could restrain spending without creating a crisis.

[TimG]

you simply won't accept any manner of empirical evidence

There is no "empirical" evidence that answers the key questions. All there is a bunch of guesswork and computer models tuned to produce the desired result. I realize you go nuts we I say this because you are so desperate to "believe" in this stuff that you unquestioningly swallow whatever claptrap has "peer reviewed" label stamped on it.

Sorry. "peer reviewed" does not mean truth. Never has and never will. The only arbiter of truth is the real world and real world experiments that show which hypotheses can correctly predict outcomes with useful precision (i.e. hypotheses where every possible outcome is deemed "consistent" with the hypothesis are not useful nor are hypotheses where contrary data is arbitrarily "adjusted" until the data fits the hypothesis).

Edited December 16, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

There is no "empirical" evidence that answers the key questions. All there is a bunch of guesswork and computer models tuned to produce the desired result. I realize you go nuts we I say this because you are so desperate to "believe" in this stuff that you unquestioningly swallow whatever claptrap has "peer reviewed" label stamped on it. Sorry. "peer reviewed" does not mean truth.

like I just said, you won't accept any empirical evidence, at all. But this is good... what are "your" key questions - name them. And while you're naming them, don't hesitate to advise why you'll deny AGW/CC, while refusing to provide what you believe is the principal alternate causal tie (other than anthropogenic sourced CO2).

also, like I just said, you retreat to attributing 'it all' to quesswork and faulty computer models... how predictable! As mentioned in the past, it's always a real hoot any time you slag peer-review because, most certainly, many times overs, you've made pointed references to (failed) papers you've offered/linked to, as being peer-reviewed. Apparently, peer-reviewed only holds significance when you can attach it to papers you attempt to leverage - go figure! Of course, ultimately, your ridiculous stance against peer-review simply reflects upon your fake skepticism not being able to be supported through peer-review/peer-response, hey?

[TimG]

is the principal alternate causal tie (other than anthropogenic sourced CO2).

Advocates of fake science claim that their hypotheses must be treated a fact unless someone can provide an alternate hypothesis. Advocates of real science demonstrate that their hypotheses are true by unambigiously predicting the outcome of physical experiements. Advocates of fake science "adjust" any data that does not conform to their hypothesis. Advocates of real science collect new data if they suspect the quality of the current data.

'it all' to quesswork and faulty computer models

Those are the facts. They are not going to change because you deny them. Edited December 16, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

Advocates of fake science claim that their hypotheses must be treated a fact unless someone can provide an alternate hypothesis. Advocates of real science demonstrate that their hypotheses are true by unambigiously predicting the outcome of physical experiements. Advocates of fake science "adjust" any data that does not conform to their hypothesis. Advocates of real science collect new data if they suspect the quality of the current data.

Those are the facts. They are not going to change because you deny them.

your whole fake skeptic sustenance is predicated upon an alternative... one you simply refuse to name. Obviously, if you had one... if there was one... you would be trumpeting it to no end - you would be flogging it to the nth degree! So - you deny for denial's sake. You'll act the clown like you did recently presuming to prop up the significance of land use or black carbon without any quantitative and supporting rationale... err... correction! You did drop a wide open googly scholar search which was certainly a most ridiculous, albeit quite humourous gesture on your part! To you, it's absolutely 'anything' but CO2... even though you can't offer just what that 'anything' actually is.

I really think we could have some fun here... obviously you didn't have the presence to answer the last request... to identify your "key questions". Oh wait, was it because I dovetailed that request with your need to (finally) state what you identify as the principal causal tie to GW/CC (other than anthropogenic sourced CO2). Did that complicate things for you, hey? How about you just identify those "key questions" you so arbitrarily alluded to. Name those key questions... sure you can, hey? Of course, the real fun I speak of will be for you to identify your basis for claiming, at large and at length, that scientists have been adjusting data to support 'their hypothesis'. I mean, really, c'mon... don't make it just another one of your wild unsubstantiated claims. Step up, hey? While you're doing that, most certainly, equally identify your basis for claiming fake skeptics are forever, as you stated, "collecting new data if they suspect the quality of the current data". Like I said, we can have some real fun here, hey?

[Keepitsimple]

Advocates of fake science claim that their hypotheses must be treated a fact unless someone can provide an alternate hypothesis. Advocates of real science demonstrate that their hypotheses are true by unambigiously predicting the outcome of physical experiements. Advocates of fake science "adjust" any data that does not conform to their hypothesis. Advocates of real science collect new data if they suspect the quality of the current data.

Those are the facts. They are not going to change because you deny them.

Tim - thanks. I still have Waldo on IGNORE but I can see the poor fellow is still suffering from a severe bout of hubris and narcissistic grandiosity. As the climate warms through natural cycles, we're adding a small amount through APG factors. Zeolots like Waldo take the opportunity to blend both together and blame it all on humanity.....for what purpose? Who really knows? But for Waldo, we know......he needs to be perceived as clever. Good luck with that Waldo. We know what you are. IGNORE.

[waldo]

Tim - thanks. I still have Waldo on IGNORE but I can see the poor fellow is still suffering from a severe bout of hubris and narcissistic grandiosity. As the climate warms through natural cycles, we're adding a small amount through APG factors. Zeolots like Waldo take the opportunity to blend both together and blame it all on humanity.....for what purpose? Who really knows? But for Waldo, we know......he needs to be perceived as clever. Good luck with that Waldo. We know what you are. IGNORE.

keep on, keeping on, hey Simple? What's this now... you must be closing in on a dozen or so times you've highlighted you have me on ignore, hey? Of course, as is your way, as is my way... each and every time you keep highlighting you have me on ignore, I am quite content to remind you of your meltdown that cascaded into you throwing the ignore switch... you know, the day I took you to task over your blustering want to, as you related, legislate morality; i.e., to legislate an outright, absolute ban against any/all abortion.

as is your way, as is my way, each and every time you front your frivolous claim that it's principally/all a, "natural cycle", I challenge you to support said claim. Of course, your past feeble attempts to do just that have been so readily, so easily, so mightily dispatched. As repeatedly emphasized to you, scientists most certainly recognize and include natural factor influences.

following your lead (your closing words)... "fake skeptics like Simple, take the opportunity to blend both together and blame it all on natural cycles... for what purpose? Who really knows?" Who really knows... well... I know. Simple, in your particular case, your flavour of fake skepticism is a measured response/position reflecting your ideological right-wing pandering to a continuation of, an extension to, fossil-fuel dependency. Nothing more, nothing less.

as always Simple, don't hesitate to, once again, attempt to make a case for "natural cycles"... MLW search is just a few clicks away - why not try fronting your 30-year cooling/warming cycle junk-science again, hey? Have you anything new from your go-to TV weatherman types? C'mon, Simple... step up! We could some fun!

[waldo]

The science is quite irrelevant. In the end the decisions that matter have to be made based on politics, economics, values and technology. i.e. if it is not technically possible to stop emitting CO2 the it really makes no difference how many scientists think it would be a good idea to reduce emissions because emissions will not be reduced.

in working to help reduce CO2 emissions, should one surmise that, as you say, based on politics, economics, values and technology, Germany is showing that it is technically possible to reduce it's carbon emissions?

recent Bloomberg update: Germany’s Renewable Output Beats Nuclear, Hard Coal in Power Mix

Germany produced more energy from renewable sources than from nuclear, hard-coal or gas-fired plants this year after boosting investments in projects from wind to biomass.

Renewables accounted for a fifth of the generation mix in 2011, up from 16.4 percent last year, the BDEW utility association said today in a website statement. Only lignite- fired output, with 24.6 percent, had a greater share this year.

Atomic power sank to 17.4 percent from 22.4 percent after Chancellor Angela Merkel shuttered the country’s eight oldest reactors in March in the wake of the Fukushima crisis in Japan. She plans a complete exit from the nuclear industry by 2022.

[TimG]

Germany is showing that it is technically possible to reduce it's carbon emissions

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2011/2011-11-14-02.html

Merkel's government has now announced that in addition to going green, it will also build a dozen coal-fired power plants as part of the country's future energy mix.

Oops. A dozen new coal plants? I wonder why they are doing that? Perhaps because the government knows renewables are a scam that cannot meet the energy requirements of a modern technological society?

And Germans are paying dearly for their renewable obsession:

In the new austere Germany, the shift to renewable energy sources comes at a bad time for the export-driven economy, as increased energy costs can only raise the cost of exports.

As for the economics of the shift, electricity from coal-fired plants costs roughly $83 per megawatt-hour.

The price increases roughly 50 percent to $124 per megawatt-hour for wind energy and goes up to $207 per megawatt-hour for offshore wind power. The $268 per megawatt-hour cost for solar power is more than three times the cost of coal-fired electricity.

In other words, renewables are a costly option that is not even worth considering unless you have an extremely wealthy society that is willing to 'make sacrifices' to the green religion living in a country which a large competitive advantage that it can afford to squander. This excludes 90% of the world's population. Edited December 17, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

Oops. A dozen new coal plants? I wonder why they are doing that? Perhaps because the government knows renewables are a scam that cannot meet the energy requirements of a modern technological society?

oh my! Clearly, the 'oops' is yours. In another of your disingenuous posts, somehow... even though your own linked article concerns the German decision to totally replace nuclear (to close all 18 of its nuclear power plants), somehow you can't make the connection! Of course what you purposely ignore is that the new coal plants are all new higher efficiency designs... and are being built in conjunction with a parallel decommissioning of older style, less efficient coal plants. Oops! Of course, you avoid the salient point; i.e., what's the net GW coal-fired electricity capacity effect by replacing old inefficient plants with these design plants... and, of course, how does that all fit within the overall German national CO2 emissions reduction strategy? Care to go there, hey?

previous MLW threads have highlighted Germany easily surpassed its aggressive 17% 2010 target for deployed renewables (with Germany now at the 20% level)... it is most certainly set on a path to meet its next target... to scale renewable deployment to supply 40% of its 2020 electricity demand as part of its national CO2 reduction goals... with some projections indicating Germany could quite easily attain a 50% overall renewable sourced electrical supply by 2020.

And Germans are paying dearly for their renewable obsession:

In other words, renewables are a costly option that is not even worth considering unless you have an extremely wealthy society that is willing to 'make sacrifices' to the green religion. This excludes 90% of the world's population and means you have provided zero evidence to refute my claim that global reductions in CO2 are technically possible.

nice try! Historically, German nuclear has reaped the same hugely significant subsidy gains that BigOil has garnered... acting to, similarly, keep electricity costs artificially low. In the past 40 years, the German nuclear industry received more than $230 billion in direct subsidies (distinct from tax break subsidy)... almost 5 times the dollar subsidy amount directed toward renewable energy technology/industry. Care to pony up a number that shows the historical edge that German subsidies to hard coal, lignite and oil & gas have held over subsidies to renewables... sure you have those figures, right?

come back with real numbers next time... numbers that show the true cost of electricity to Germans... without the current nuclear, hard coal, lignite, oil& gas direct subsidies (notwithstanding the hugely significant tax relief based subsidies)... come back with numbers that reflect the true cost of electricity, not the numbers that exclude the hidden costs of direct and tax based subsidies... that act to keep electricity costs artificially lower, hey?

[Wild Bill]

oh my! Clearly, the 'oops' is yours. In another of your disingenuous posts, somehow... even though your own linked article concerns the German decision to totally replace nuclear (to close all 18 of its nuclear power plants), somehow you can't make the connection! Of course what you purposely ignore is that the new coal plants are all new higher efficiency designs... and are being built in conjunction with a parallel decommissioning of older style, less efficient coal plants. Oops! Of course, you avoid the salient point; i.e., what's the net GW coal-fired electricity capacity effect by replacing old inefficient plants with these design plants... and, of course, how does that all fit within the overall German national CO2 emissions reduction strategy? Care to go there, hey?

Waldo, I'd be the first to agree with you that there are many new designs for coal-fired power plants that are "green".

That being said, doesn't that make McGuinty look even more inept with his energy policies, given his dismantling of our domestic coal-fired plants, without apparently replacing them with alternatives that are as cost-effective?

I can't figure McGuinty out. It's as if he got all his input on what we should do from some vague article in MacLean's magazine. As a techie, to me it makes no sense!

[TimG]

even though your own linked article concerns the German decision to totally replace nuclear (to close all 18 of its nuclear power plants)

Yep. They need to replace nuclear with coal cause renewables are crappy sources of power.

previous MLW threads have highlighted Germany easily surpassed its aggressive 17% 2010 target for deployed renewables (with Germany now at the 20% level)

And Germans are paying through the nose for it. More importantly, they depend on power imports from their neighbors when the wind don't blow so quoting the percentage of german power if a gross deception on your part. If you want to quote percentages you need to include the entire multi-national grid. Anyone can draw an arbitrary line on a map and say 'oh looky 100% renewable power inside those lines lets just ignore the fact that people living inside those lines are still completely dependent on power imports'

come back with real numbers next time

I gave you numbers. The fact is renewables are an expensive luxury that cannot replace existing power sources.

[waldo]

Yep. They need to replace nuclear with coal cause renewables are crappy sources of power.

and yet in a relative short period of time, as shown during the first half of 2011, Germany has managed to have renewable energy sources meet 20% of its total energy mix... and is well positioned to meet it's next 40% by 2020 target.

previous MLW threads have highlighted Germany easily surpassed its aggressive 17% 2010 target for deployed renewables (with Germany now at the 20% level)... it is most certainly set on a path to meet its next target... to scale renewable deployment to supply 40% of its 2020 electricity demand as part of its national CO2 reduction goals... with some projections indicating Germany could quite easily attain a 50% overall renewable sourced electrical supply by 2020.

nice to see you dodge any discussion of Germany's historical, most significant subsidy disparity that nuclear/BigOil holds over renewables. Most certainly, let's not have you continue to ignore the effective result of Germany's shift/change... a significant reduction in its carbon emissions!

in working to help reduce CO2 emissions, should one surmise that, as you say, based on politics, economics, values and technology,

Germany is showing that it is technically possible to reduce it's carbon emissions

?

clearly, a significant component in meeting that most impressive shift/change is its much lauded 'Feed In Tariff (FIT)' programs. Of course, you recently dropped another of your wildly incorrect claims by labeling FIT an alternative energy scam... and as is your ongoing pattern, you couldn't/wouldn't take up the challenge to support your wild scam claim.

Politicians peddling carbon taxes are also likely to piss away a lot of money on various alternative energy scams such as feed in tariffs.

ah yes, the continued TimG drumbeat against alternative energy... with more broad-sweeping claim. The hugely successful FIT programs in Germany/France/Spain counter your claim. Certainly, typical North American FIT programs have been wanting; however, the Ontario 2009 FIT has received positive review as compared to the successful FIT programs within Germany/France/Spain.

And Germans are paying through the nose for it. More importantly, they depend on power imports from their neighbors when the wind don't blow so quoting the percentage of german power if a gross deception on your part. If you want to quote percentages you need to include the entire multi-national grid. Anyone can draw an arbitrary line on a map and say 'oh looky 100% renewable power inside those lines lets just ignore the fact that people living inside those lines are still completely dependent on power imports'

again, another TimG unsupported claim... historically, overall, year-by-year, Germany has always been an effective exporter of energy. That is projected to continue even with Germany's expressed intention to, over time, shut down its nuclear plants. And again, you come forward with a well debunked wind energy myth concerning variable wind... have you no shame? As for percentages, what are you babbling about... are you denying that Germany has quite readily met a 20% renewables component within it's overall energy makeup?

I gave you numbers. The fact is renewables are an expensive luxury that cannot replace existing power sources.

yes... yes you did give "numbers" - these:

As for the economics of the shift, electricity from coal-fired plants costs roughly $83 per megawatt-hour.

The price increases roughly 50 percent to $124 per megawatt-hour for wind energy and goes up to $207 per megawatt-hour for offshore wind power.

your linked article doesn't attribute those numbers to a source... and the wording doesn't even suggest a correlation to Germany. Rather, those appear to be somewhat dated and generic 'industry at large' references. The International Energy Association (IEA) states Germany's 2010 5% discount total Levelized Cost of Energy for on-shore wind is $105 per MWh... $137 per MWh for off-shore wind. Obviously those numbers will continue to decrease as scalability/volume production increases.

[TimG]

and yet in a relative short period of time, as shown during the first half of 2011, Germany has managed to have renewable energy sources meet 20% of its total energy mix.

A statistic that is total nonsense because German power imports from France and Czech exceed the total wind power production. Germany may be a net exporter of power but it needs the base load power from France and Czech to keep the lights on when the wind does not blow. There is no way Germany will meet the 40% target without increasing its reliance on base load power from its neighbors.

The bottom line is: without subsidies and mandates no one would build wind power or solar. So no matter what games advocates play with the cost figures these sources are not economic and are likely to remain uneconomic now that we have found massive supplies of natural gas.

[waldo]

A statistic that is total nonsense because German power imports from France and Czech exceed the total wind power production. Germany may be a net exporter of power but it needs the base load power from France and Czech to keep the lights on when the wind does not blow. There is no way Germany will meet the 40% target without increasing its reliance on base load power from its neighbors.

cite your source(s)... again, you continue the debunked myth concerning (variable) wind.

The bottom line is: without subsidies and mandates no one would build wind power or solar. So no matter what games advocates play with the cost figures these sources are not economic and are likely to remain uneconomic now that we have found massive supplies of natural gas.

games? And what game are you playing when you continue to emphasize subsidies when you know, categorically know, that current subsidies for fossil-fuels/nuclear, far and away, are more than any direct subsidies given to renewables. As for "found" supplies of natural gas... those fields have always been known of. Good luck with 'fracking' those fields, hey?

[TimG]

cite your source(s)... again, you continue the debunked myth concerning (variable) wind.

Sorry. The variability problem with wind is well known. If you think Germany has a solution other than importing base load power from its neighbors then you show it.

http://www.germanenergyblog.de/?p=5436

In light of the still large share of fossil fuels, Hildegard Müller, head of BDEW, emphasized that an industrialized nation like Germany needed all the above-mentioned fuel sources for the foreseeable future. She called for an open and unbiased debate about fossil fuels supplementing renewable energy in the decades to come. The power plant fleet of the future needed to comprise a broad spectrum of plants, ranging from decentralized combined heat and power plants to centrally located large power plants to provide base load energy, she said.

games? And what game are you playing when you continue to emphasize subsidies when you know, categorically know, that current subsidies for fossil-fuels/nuclear

The only measure that matters is kWH subsidy and you know that renewable subsidies are astronomical by that measure. More importantly, it really does not make a difference how many times you repeat your nonsense about total subsidies the people who run power systems know that the per kWH subsidy is what matters which is why renewables like wind/solar will not be replacing fossil fuels any time soon. Edited December 19, 2011 by TimG

[dre]

The only measure that matters is kWH subsidy

No, sorry thats bunk.

[TimG]

No, sorry thats bunk.

Nonsense. Power sources with a high per kWH subsidy are not scalable. They will never be more than bit players in the energy equation because subsidizing them at levels high enough to produce a significant power is unaffordable. The idea that subsidizing them will make them "affordable" is a pipe dream. They have been doing it for decades and there is no sign that these technologies can compete without large subsidies.

[waldo]

Sorry. The variability problem with wind is well known. If you think Germany has a solution other than importing base load power from its neighbors then you show it.

so, per norm... you have no sources to support your claim concerning wind variability... just one of the many myths continually perpetuated by fake skeptics... like you! As discussed many times over in previous MLW threads, with supporting citations, electrical grid operators... per any load variability (from any source/plant outage or generation variation), handle wind variations using existing conventional grid adjustment mechanisms like managing spinning/non-spinning reserves. Additionally, wind forecasting is proving to be a reliable real-time predictor while, most significantly, wind farm placements over large balancing geographic areas allow for wind variability to be smoothed over larger geographic regions.

so... you're challenged to provide a supporting citation to your claim concerning wind variability... you don't/can't provide that citation... and instead... you drop the following link that simply speaks to the varied mix of 2010 German electrical generation sources. Other than highlighting the article's 2010 renewable number (17%) is no longer valid... that it has now been updated in early 2011 to 20%... what was your point of this following link?

http://www.germanenergyblog.de/?p=5436

particularly when I just posted this:

previous MLW threads have highlighted Germany easily surpassed its aggressive 17% 2010 target for deployed renewables (with Germany now at the 20% level)... it is most certainly set on a path to meet its next target... to scale renewable deployment to supply 40% of its 2020 electricity demand as part of its national CO2 reduction goals... with some projections indicating Germany could quite easily attain a 50% overall renewable sourced electrical supply by 2020.

The only measure that matters is kWH subsidy and you know that renewable subsidies are astronomical by that measure. More importantly, it really does not make a difference how many times you repeat your nonsense about total subsidies the people who run power systems know that the per kWH subsidy is what matters which is why renewables like wind/solar will not be replacing fossil fuels any time soon.

no, no matter how many times you continue to perpetuate this nonsensical per/KWh subsidy claim... you continue to have it wrong.

you simply cling to that meaningless per/kWh metric because it allows you to falsely compare fossil-fuel subsidies to those for renewable options... it's simply a metric that reflects upon the maturity of fossil-fuels and hence, how much of it is produced.

[waldo]

The only measure that matters is kWH subsidy

No, sorry thats bunk.

and yet... he keeps coming back with the same ole crap! A recent TimG schooling from both of us:

and you persist in continuing to reference the irrelevant (to this discussion point) 'per kWh produced' figure... you have been repeatedly schooled over your improper use and continued reference to that metric - and yet you persist... again, and again, and again! Here, as follows, a few representative MLW posts you continue to ignore, while also continuing to ignore the direct question/challenge to you as to why 'BigOil' continues/needs to receive the most outrageous level of subsidy it receives today - just answer the question/challenge... just answer it.

...Again, the only reason the subsidy per unit of energy figure for BigOil is so low... is because so much of it is produced. And on that point alone, you weasel your way around the actual expenditure numbers. Since you have truly assumed the MLW position as head shill for Big Oil, perhaps you might answer the question you keep avoiding. Just why does BigOil continue to need subsidies... particularly in the face of year over year record profits? Just answer the question...

No, per unit of energy tells you more about how mature a technology is. That number starts fairly high and goes down as an industry matures and scale of production increases. You would expect those numbers to be high for wind and solar because they are very young technologies in terms of considerable capital investment.

What SHOULD really bother you is that industries that have already been in full scale operation for many decades are STILL recieving most the energy subsidy dollars. And they have been getting that money for decades. We have spent almost NOTHING comparatively on renewables.

You claim you dont support subsidies except for during the intial R&D and Rollout phase which is where wind and solar are at. But you ignore the fact that industries that have already been up and running on a large scale for more than half a century are getting the bulk of the subsidies. Then you try to fall back on the whole narrative about PER UNITS but thats bogus because if you only support subsidies during the R&D phase then OF COURSE THE FOCKIN UNITS ARE GOING TO COST MORE. Initial r&d subsidies often dont yield any units at all!

If you only believe emerging technologies should get subsidies then why the hell would you even bring up PER UNIT costs as an excuse for a well established industry getting most of the subsidies?

[dre]

Nonsense. Power sources with a high per kWH subsidy are not scalable. They will never be more than bit players in the energy equation because subsidizing them at levels high enough to produce a significant power is unaffordable. The idea that subsidizing them will make them "affordable" is a pipe dream. They have been doing it for decades and there is no sign that these technologies can compete without large subsidies.

No, again this is all just bunk. Any subsidies should only exist during the development of a new technology. Capital investment and subsidies in technologies like wind and solar have dramatically reduced the cost of these technologies and it continues to drop. This is exactly when we should be subsidizing.

Edited December 19, 2011 by dre

[TimG]

No, again this is all just bunk. Any subsidies should only exist during the development of a new technology. Capital investment and subsidies in technologies like wind and solar have dramatically reduced the cost of these technologies and it continues to drop. This is exactly when we should be subsidizing.

The cost of these technologies is in the infrastructure required to support them. These costs are NOT dropping because the cost building new fossil fuel plants for backup and new transmission lines are largely fixed and increasing. For things like solar the limiting cost is in the installation - not the cost of the panels themselves. On top of this you have the hidden subsidies caused by an inefficient network that puts more stress on base load plants that have to be constantly adjusted to match the variable output.

In short, the maximum penetration for variable power like wind will remain fixed at around 10-20% of the grid that supplies the base load (which is usually much larger than a single country so quoting stats for a single country is a gross deception). The subsidies make no sense for a power source that cannot possibly meet the energy needs of a modern society - especially when you consider that there are a lot of deluded fools that think they can justify opposing new fossil fuel generation because of their renewable fantasies. What we need is a honest conversation that starts by telling people that fossil fuel generation is not going away no matter what is done with wind/solar. Once people accept that reality then we can talk about appropriate levels of support for what is basically "boutique power" for wealthy yuppies.

Edited December 19, 2011 by TimG