German town goes off the grid with alternative energy.

[segnosaur]

That said I've never heard of anyone being killed or tortured over a windmill or a solar panel.

Ironically though, in the Western world, there are more deaths caused by wind and solar power than by nuclear power.

Yes, nuclear power can be dangerous, but there are usually very tight controls, and nuclear power plants generate a HUGE amount of power for a given installation. On the other hand, while a solar panel might seem rather... harmless, the fact is people do get killed from their use (industrial accidents during manufacture, heck, even falling off the roof during instillation). Since you need a whole lot of solar panels to make up for the output of one nuclear plant, it ends up being more dangerous (per killowat generated) than nuclear.

Things like 3 mile island and Fukushima get a lot of attention in the press, but for all of the horrors, deaths are very rare (nobody died during the incident of 3 mile island, and long term it might cause one or 2 additional deaths due to cancer, over multiple decades.) Meanwhile, a couple of years ago, 3 people died in California during solar power installations, and over 100 might be occurring every year. (http://scienceray.com/technology/solar-panel-hazards/)

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

[waldo]

First, Germany has extremely generous subsidies for renewable power there is no way this town could have done what it did without such subsidies so the quoted electrical rates are basically lies.

no - the basic subsidy lie is the one you continue to perpetuate. You continue to ignore the overwhelming disparity between subsidies for fossil-fuels and renewables... that subsidies for fossil-fuels have been disproportionately higher than those for renewables - historically and continuing today. You've been shown the numbers, repeatedly... over and over, again! And yet, you persist!

as for German subsidies, from a recent study showing the 1970-2012 subsidies for hard coal (steinkohle) vs. lignite coal (braunkohle) vs. nuclear (atomenergie) vs. renewables (erneuerbare), in billions Euros:

Second, it appears that this town of 150 people are willing to live with power outages which means they are making large sacrifices in lifestyle to make this project work.

as for what exact subsidies the town might have leveraged, you can't say... you don't know - but when has that ever stopped you.

as for your suggestion the town, "is willing to accept power outages"... no - they are not disconnected from the grid. If required, they could still draw from the grid... they simply don`t need to, given the sustaining balance they have realized between biogas, solar and wind. In fact, per the article, their problem is a concern over putting too much power back into the grid as there are penalties involved with this as it affects country-wide export aspects. Perhaps you should explore the record electricity exports of Germany, hey?

[Keepitsimple]

Too bad our country is run by dinosaurs in the pockets of big oil trying to get every last drop out to see to China while trashing the planet. Other countries are moving into the 21st century.

http://www.treehugger.com/environmental-policy/town-goes-grid-achieves-energy-independence.html

Kairos - you are looking at "Big Oil" as if they were one huge, greedy, demonic entity. In fact, "Big Oil" is made of millions of common shareholders - most of which have their shares invested in their retirement portfolios. Secondly, Big Oil is in the Energy business - of which the Oil industry is a big piece - but to protect shareholders, "Big Oil" will move money to where there is a demand. Oil companies already invest large amounts in renewable energy alternatives and will continue to do so as long as demand is there, and a profit is to be made on behalf of the shareholders. If solar or wind were actally able to stand on their own one day - that demonic entity that you used to call "Big Oil" would be the principal owners of those renewable energy companies. But I ust admit - "Big Oil" makes a convenient target for those frustrated Eco-Activists.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Keepitsimple

[segnosaur]

Surprised people still think nuclear power is clean or green. Your waste is radioactive for decades. Might be clean generation in terms of not emitting any extra Co2, however the other waste product is a lot more hazardous and has to be handled with much care.

Yes, radioactive waste is something that has to be dealt with. However, there are a few points to consider:

- Much of that waste can be reprocessed.

- Many of the problems regarding the handling of waste are political problems rather than engineering problems. The U.S. government cancelled the Yucca Mountain project (which would have been a safe disposal site)

- If you want to consider secondary types of pollution in considering whether a technology is "green", remember, wind and solar also require resources to construct... Copper/aluminum/steel/etc. for electronics, possibly rare earth metals, etc. All this must be extracted through things like mining, and then smelted (which of course also causes environmental problems.) . And since they're generating capacity is less than for nuclear, you'll probably have to dig more mines to produce the same amount of power.

[Bonam]

as for German subsidies, from a recent study showing the 1970-2012 subsidies for hard coal (steinkohle) vs. lignite coal (braunkohle) vs. nuclear (atomenergie) vs. renewables (erneuerbare), in billions Euros:

[image]

Wanna normalize those by the amount of energy (GWh) produced by each energy source? For each dollar of subsidy spent on each of those sources, how much power do they produce?

[waldo]

If solar or wind were actually able to stand on their own one day - that demonic entity that you used to call "Big Oil" would be the principal owners of those renewable energy companies. But I must admit - "Big Oil" makes a convenient target for those frustrated Eco-Activists.

[waldo]

Wanna normalize those by the amount of energy (GWh) produced by each energy source? For each dollar of subsidy spent on each of those sources, how much power do they produce?

that's the same bullshyte move TimG tries - good on ya! That so-called "normalization" reflects upon nothing more than how long the fossil-fuel industry has existed. Perhaps you could take a shot at rationalizing the continued exorbitant subsidies Big Oil gets... particularly when those subsidy dollars should be going towards weaning us off the BigOil teet!

[TimG]

Wanna normalize those by the amount of energy (GWh) produced by each energy source? For each dollar of subsidy spent on each of those sources, how much power do they produce?

Waldo rejects all attempts to relate subsidies to energy produced as 'denier propaganda' (largely because such comparisons show the fossil-fuels-are-cheap-because-of-subsidies meme to be completely false).

You will not get a rational response to your question.

[Bonam]

that's the same bullshyte move TimG tries - good on ya! That so-called "normalization" reflects upon nothing more than how long the fossil-fuel industry has existed. Perhaps you could take a shot at rationalizing the continued exorbitant subsidies Big Oil gets... particularly when those subsidy dollars should be going towards weaning us off the BigOil teet!

Well, I'd rather no energy source got any subsidies actually (besides during the initial R&D phase). People should pay the full price for whatever energy they are using, however it is generated. They are paying for it anyway through taxes, and a tax + subsidy scheme merely transfers wealth from low energy users to high energy users, which is of course counterproductive to the conservation agenda. But so long as we have subsidies, one must look at how much of the economics of any given energy source is subsidy driven.

Anyway, your response is nonsensical. Looking at annual GWh produced by various energy sources is a measure of how things are now, not how long something has existed. Ignoring this measure is silly. For example, why fund an energy source that produces 1 GWh when another one can produce 100 GWh for the same funding level?

Comparing energy sources without normalizing for energy produced is like comparing nation's economies without normalizing per capita - useless.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Bonam

[Bonam]

You will not get a rational response to your question.

Looks like you're right.

[Accountability Now]

The problem in Fukushima was caused by the tsunami which flooded the plant and destroyed its cooling apparatus. Modern plants have a passive cooling design and are not vulnerable to this type of problem.

I agree. My point is that these plants aren't appropriate for any spot. Having it in an area that gets earthquakes daily and possible tsunamis should put it lower on this list of acceptable locations. Having said that, there are a ton of other locations that don't fall into that category.

[TimG]

I agree. My point is that these plants aren't appropriate for any spot. Having it in an area that gets earthquakes daily and possible tsunamis should put it lower on this list of acceptable locations. Having said that, there are a ton of other locations that don't fall into that category.

Unless the entire country is an earthquake/tsunami zone and the alternative requires the import of fossil fuels across seas with potentially hostile neighbors.

Risks must be managed. There are no absolute rules.

[waldo]

Well, I'd rather no energy source got any subsidies actually (besides during the initial R&D phase).

Anyway, your response is nonsensical. Looking at annual GWh produced by various energy sources is a measure of how things are now, not how long something has existed. Ignoring this measure is silly. For example, why fund an energy source that produces 1 GWh when another one can produce 100 GWh for the same funding level?

Comparing energy sources without normalizing for energy produced is like comparing nation's economies without normalizing per capita - useless.

how naive are you? To top it off, your first sentence contradicts your own nonsense! Those per/kwh numbers TimG so likes to flaunt are, again, nothing more than a reflection on the maturity of fossil-fuel industries.... it's called infrastructure buildup! Duh!

renewable capital investment and subsidies have dramatically reduced the cost of renewable technologies... and it continues to drop. Renewables are where subsidies should be targeted..... you know, like you acknowledge in your first sentence. But why take it from me - read it from a (former) BigOil CEO himself:

House GOP Says ‘So Be It’ To Taxpayers, Votes Unanimously to Protect Big Oil Subsidies

House Republicans voted in lockstep this afternoon to protect corporate welfare for Big Oil, even as they call for draconian cuts to programs that everyday Americans depend on each day. As the House of Representatives moved toward approving a stopgap resolution to avert a government shutdown for another two weeks, Democrats offered a motion to recommit that would have stripped the five largest oil companies of taxpayer subsidies, saving tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer funds. The motion failed on a vote of 176-249, with all Republicans voting against (approximately a dozen Democrats joined the GOP). A similar vote two weeks ago to recoup $53 billion in taxpayer funds from Big Oil was also voted down, largely along party lines. The former CEO of Shell Oil, John Hoffmeister, recently said Big Oil doesn’t need subsidies “in face of sustained high oil prices.” From 2005 to 2009, the largest oil companies have made a combined $485 billion in profits.

[Accountability Now]

Unless the entire country is an earthquake/tsunami zone and the alternative requires the import of fossil fuels across seas with potentially hostile neighbors.

Risks must be managed. There are no absolute rules.

Yes I agree. I wasn't so much talking about Japan as an isolated case. I was thinking more in other world wide locations. The fact that nuclear power plants get a bad image from Fukishima is not indicitive of the whole story. But when you look at Japan alone then maybe it does make sense to have them considering its situation.

[GostHacked]

Japan's switch to to fossil fuels in the wake of their nuke shutdown has eliminated the trade surplus they had had for decades. This turns a hypothetical government debt problem (200% of GDP) into a potential catastrophe because foreign buyers are needed for the bonds in order to balance cash flows (currently most Japanese government bonds are held by Japanese).

It worth remembering that all affected nuclear plants shut down safely after the 2011 earthquake as designed. The problem in Fukushima was caused by the tsunami which flooded the plant and destroyed its cooling apparatus. Modern plants have a passive cooling design and are not vulnerable to this type of problem.

It is sad that so many uninformed people use this incident to draw incorrect conclusions about nuclear power.

Many of the plants that are currently operating in North America are of the same age as the ones at Fukushima, some are on fault lines (SONGS in Cali). What is the life span of a reactor?

The thing is with nuclear power, if there is a mess, it's a huge one. Two years later Fukushima is still spewing out a lot of radioactive material.

The nuke plants in Japan were shut down manually after the quake.

Yes there are a lot of uninformed people out there.

Yes, radioactive waste is something that has to be dealt with. However, there are a few points to consider:

- Much of that waste can be reprocessed.

Into what? There is only one thing that the waste seems to be good for. Warheads.

- Many of the problems regarding the handling of waste are political problems rather than engineering problems. The U.S. government cancelled the Yucca Mountain project (which would have been a safe disposal site)

- If you want to consider secondary types of pollution in considering whether a technology is "green", remember, wind and solar also require resources to construct... Copper/aluminum/steel/etc. for electronics, possibly rare earth metals, etc. All this must be extracted through things like mining, and then smelted (which of course also causes environmental problems.) . And since they're generating capacity is less than for nuclear, you'll probably have to dig more mines to produce the same amount of power.

Yes but how much resources does a solar panel needs after it is manufactured? Same question regarding wind turbines? What are the risks of a solar panel failing or a wind turbine failing in terms of environmental impact?

So the whole 'green' thing is an overused marketing tool in my view.

[TimG]

Many of the plants that are currently operating in North America are of the same age as the ones at Fukushima, some are on fault lines (SONGS in Cali). What is the life span of a reactor?

Old nuclear plants need to be closed down and replaced. Old plants are only kept running because environmental luddites make it too difficult to build a new plant.

The nuke plants in Japan were shut down manually after the quake.

No true. The reactors automatically shutdown (meaning the fission chain reaction was halted).

Located on the Eastern coast of Japan, the six nuclear power reactors at Daiichi are boiling water reactors (BWRs). A massive earthquake on 11 March disabled off-site power to the plant and triggered the automatic shutdown of the three operating reactors - Units 1, 2 and 3. The control rods in those Units were successfully inserted into the reactor cores, ending the fission chain reaction. The remaining reactors - Units 4, 5 and 6 - had previously been shut down for routine maintenance purposes. Backup diesel generators, designed to start up after losing off-site power, began providing electricity to pumps circulating coolant to the six reactors.

Into what? There is only one thing that the waste seems to be good for. Warheads.

Waste can be recycled into something that can put back into a power plant.

Edited February 21, 2013 by TimG

[Bonam]

Waste can be recycled into something that can put back into a power plant.

Except we don't do much/any of that either, also due to irrational fear of nuclear technology.

[waldo]

Wanna normalize those by the amount of energy (GWh) produced by each energy source? For each dollar of subsidy spent on each of those sources, how much power do they produce?

that's the same bullshyte move TimG tries - good on ya! That so-called "normalization" reflects upon nothing more than how long the fossil-fuel industry has existed. Perhaps you could take a shot at rationalizing the continued exorbitant subsidies Big Oil gets... particularly when those subsidy dollars should be going towards weaning us off the BigOil teet!

hey Bonam... outside of the disproportionate degree of fossil-fuel subsidies and tax breaks, care to normalize the fossil-fuel related externalities associated with... oh, say... health related costs, climate change, air pollution, water pollution, etc.?

in line with my earlier Germany localized graphic showing the significant gap between fossil-fuel and renewable subsidies, a more comprehensive global view:

[Accountability Now]

Maybe the government is just tired of betting on a losing horse. (ie. Solyndra)

[waldo]

Maybe the government is just tired of betting on a losing horse. (ie. Solyndra)

clearly... you don't know what you're talking about. We've had no shortage of detailed analysis on the complete history of Solyndra through both the Bush and Obama admins. Perhaps you could speak to your perceived problems associated with solar... and, in particular, your continued flogging of Solyndra, hey?

a ready reference reminder:

once again: Bush admin approved in terms of placing Solyndra within the final complement of businesses seeking funding - near the end of the Bush presidency. Career civil servants carried the final review process for all Bush admin approved companies through the transition between Bush and Obama admins. As I recall, Solyndra was one of 12 companies (perhaps 16, I can't recall for sure) provided funding - how many of those other companies have gone bankrupt, hey Shady? As for the particular Solyndra bankruptcy itself, the one you so willingly and wantonly attempt to tar Obama with, the cause of that bankruptcy is well understood/documented... the Chinese ate Solyndra's lunch (and the rest of the world) in to-market timeliness and competitiveness of pv solar panels. But wait a minute, all that Chinese supremacy would have funneled on through the timeline of the Bush admin!!!

recent results of the independent review of the U.S. DOE's Loan Guarantee Program: consensus statement => "overall, loan guarantees for energy have been successful, cost-effective investments." ... "DOE Loan Guarantee Program Will Cost $2 Billion Less Than Initially Expected"

Federal Energy Loan Guarantees Win Clean Bill of Health - Noted Conservative’s Independent Report Demonstrates Effectiveness

another study from Bloomberg Government highlights the real fiasco here Shady... how the Republicans tried/try to play politics with Solyndra, showcasing the disproportionate attention given to Soyndra, particularly as that purposeful GOP attention is aimed to obscure the overall success of the DOE's Loan Guarantee Program => BGOV Study: Solyndra Failure Obscures Low-Risk Energy Guarantees

>

The collapse of Solyndra LLC, the California-based solar module manufacturer, has provided ammunition for critics who believe the government shouldn’t attempt to pick winners among emerging energy technologies. Investigations by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives have generated rancor that threatens to obscure the bipartisan consensus that created the Department of Energy’s Loan Program Office under President George W. Bush.

A Bloomberg Government Study, “Beyond Solyndra: An Analysis of DOE’s Loan Guarantee Program,” provides an in-depth look at the DOE loan-guarantee initiatives and the 28 energy projects that received $16.1 billion in loan guarantees under the 2009 American Reinvestment and Recovery Act.

The study concludes that 87 percent of the $16.1 billion in loan guarantees is backing 18 power generation projects, which have a low risk of default because they were required to have buyers for their power output. Ten manufacturing, fuel production and storage projects, which make up the remaining 13 percent of the portfolio value, were not required by DOE to find buyers in order to receive guarantees.

and, best of all, a tidy graphic to showcase just what the GOP accomplished during its failed attempt to politicize Solyndra: Buptkiss!

[GostHacked]

Old nuclear plants need to be closed down and replaced. Old plants are only kept running because environmental luddites make it too difficult to build a new plant.

No true. The reactors automatically shutdown (meaning the fission chain reaction was halted).

This is true if you are only dealing with Fukushima, and yet we still had 3 full meltdowns and one melt-through. After the quake Japan decided to shut down all other nuclear reactors and only recently had brought one or two back online to handle the power demand.

[waldo]

The problem is we have no economically viable alternatives (people who claim we do simply do not understand the economics of energy production).

do you have any new material yet?

RENEWABLE ENERGY NOW CHEAPER THAN NEW FOSSIL FUELS IN AUSTRALIA --- 7 February 2013

>Australia wind beats new coal in the world’s second-largest coal exporter.

Unsubsidised renewable energy is now cheaper than electricity from new-build coal- and gas-fired power stations in Australia, according to new analysis from research firm Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

[Accountability Now]

clearly... you don't know what you're talking about. We've had no shortage of detailed analysis on the complete history of Solyndra through both the Bush and Obama admins. Perhaps you could speak to your perceived problems associated with solar... and, in particular, your continued flogging of Solyndra, hey?

I love how you open your response with such grace. "Clearly you don't know what you're talking about!" What is that?

My point is that the decision to go with a certain energy source is not just an apples to apples comparison. The government has to take in a number of factors including stability, effect on the economy and of course efficiency. You can paint it any way you want, Solyndra was a government backed pony that took a nose dive. Other green system may have prevailed but it doesn't look good when the US and the world are seeing one of the largest recessions since the depression. Backing oil (AT THIS TIME) secures jobs and provides the economy with what it needs right now. There will come a time when backing green technology will make sense but again...its not as simple as plotting oil versus green straight up.

[segnosaur]

hey Bonam... outside of the disproportionate degree of fossil-fuel subsidies and tax breaks, care to normalize the fossil-fuel related externalities associated with... oh, say... health related costs, climate change, air pollution, water pollution, etc.?

Yes, such externalities are valid issues for discussion. As long as you recognize that:

- Even 'renewable' energy sources will have their own secondary costs (everything from extra natural resources needed for manufacture, plus the costs associated with having 'backups' available, missed opportunity costs.). Its even possible that such secondary costs might make fossil fuel more expensive. Frankly, given the complexity of the situation, its probably beyond the ability of us mortals to actually DO a coprehensive comparison, taking all direct and secondary costs into effect.

- The issue of such externalities is a different issue than that the issue of direct subsidization, which was supposedly the only reason why this German town was able to go "off grid"

in line with my earlier Germany localized graphic showing the significant gap between fossil-fuel and renewable subsidies, a more comprehensive global view:

Here's the problem with that particular graphic... Nobody here was claiming that Fossil fuels weren't getting larger subsidies in terms of overall dollar values. The issue was was whether they were getting more subsidies ON A PER-KW basis, which is a more important measure.

You attempted to hand-wave away the issue (by claiming oil/gas was 'established'). However, Solar and wind are both relatively established technologies. Yes, there may be improvements, but at this point they should be able to survive or die based on their own merits.

[waldo]

I love how you open your response with such grace. "Clearly you don't know what you're talking about!" What is that?

My point is that the decision to go with a certain energy source is not just an apples to apples comparison. The government has to take in a number of factors including stability, effect on the economy and of course efficiency. You can paint it any way you want, Solyndra was a government backed pony that took a nose dive. Other green system may have prevailed but it doesn't look good when the US and the world are seeing one of the largest recessions since the depression. Backing oil (AT THIS TIME) secures jobs and provides the economy with what it needs right now. There will come a time when backing green technology will make sense but again...its not as simple as plotting oil versus green straight up.

my first sentence response was as 'graceful', as you say, as your flogging Solyndra. Anyone who references Solyndra in the manner you did, clearly, as I stated, doesn't know what they're talking about. If you feel otherwise, as I stated, don't hesitate to make your case for your described "losing horse Solyndra". As for your more generalized, 'government factoring' reference, on the localized Solyndra level, the U.S. government factored risk analysis/assessments into the complete DOE Loan Guarantee Program, at large, as well as to the particular applications within the program.

equally, it appears you know nothing about jobs associated with so-called green energy... today and future potentials! But don't let any of this stop you from your unsubstantiated statements/claims.

Edited February 21, 2013 by waldo