German town goes off the grid with alternative energy.

[segnosaur]

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.

A couple of things from the article that you should keep in mind:

- The article points out that a good chunk of the cost from new fossil fuel plants is from banks wanting to charge more for loans to construct them. That doesn't sound like an argument based on pure economics

- The article also points out that wind/solar are cheaper than NEW fossil fuel plans. However wind/solar can't compare with plants that are already constructed.

Of course, ultimately, the article is irrelevant. Yes, there will eventually come a day when fossil fuels don't make economic sense anymore. Wind/solar might be part of that mix (although there are other technologies that might end up being more significant.) If they've found that wind/solar is cheaper now, then great.. build away. It makes economic sense. But not every place will have the same characteristics that make wind/solar the "best choice". The fact that germany provides subsidies to wind/solar projects suggests that the conditions aren't right to make alternative energy cheaper there, regardless of what the case is in Australia.

[waldo]

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.

and, to degrees, attempts toward more comprehensive studies, factoring externalities, have been done. I've presented a few in the past. In this thread, I simply drew a generalized consideration toward them in regards to the wide-sweeping, most generalized reference to "normalization".

- 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"

as I pointed out, at least in regards to the OP link reference, there is no direct and detailed reference to the town requiring subsidies to accomplish it's position. The only direct costing associates to the 2 references to biogas and the internal grid creation itself... the article states the town paid for half the biogas facility (with the EU providing the other half as a grant), and paid for creating the internal grid itself (directly from townspeople). The matter of how the solar installs were paid for isn't mentioned... nor, for that matter, is wind turbine costing mentioned. But none of that stopped TimG from another of his blanket statements on renewable subsidies.

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.

no - the matter of fossil-fuel versus renewable subsidies is a long-standing point of contention across a myriad of previous MLW threads... it's an underlying theme that can be associated with anything TimG posts. More pointedly, until I brought the countering point/emphasis forward, no one had been discussing subsidies, other than TimG with another of his blanket unsubstantiated statements concerning renewable results vs. subsidies. Most definitely, no one had even mentioned per/kwh until I brought the point forward. Perhaps you should spend more time actually reading posts, hey?

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.

hand-wave??? Pointing out the fact... the most obvious fact, that fossil-fuels are mature/established is not "hand-waving". Do you actually follow this subject? To suggest solar/wind technologies are established... oh wait... you did say "relatively established"... shows you know nothing about the ongoing advances in both wind and solar. Since you speak of "on their own merits", can we put down as one favouring the abolition of current fossil-fuel subsidies? Oh, by the by, do you think it's fair that fossil-fuels have had decades of historical subsidies to establish... and now... you suggest it's time for renewables to "survive or die on their own merits". Is that your fair and balanced assessment... or is that your particular brand of, as you say, "hand-waving"?

[waldo]

A couple of things from the article that you should keep in mind:

- The article points out that a good chunk of the cost from new fossil fuel plants is from banks wanting to charge more for loans to construct them. That doesn't sound like an argument based on pure economics

no - the applicable article reference suggests it's entirely economics... or do you have other motives you'd like to assign towards the... bankers?

The study surveyed Australias four largest banks and found that lenders are unlikely to finance new coal without a substantial risk premium due to the reputational damage of emissions-intensive investments if they are to finance coal at all. New gas-fired generation is expensive as the massive expansion of Australias liquefied natural gas (LNG) export market forces local prices upwards. The carbon price adds further costs to new coal- and gas-fired plant and is forecast to increase substantially over the lifetime of a new facility.

-

- The article also points out that wind/solar are cheaper than NEW fossil fuel plans. However wind/solar can't compare with plants that are already constructed.

the reference/emphasis on "NEW" was there within the article... and in the title!!! Should one ask if you're prepared to cut NEW wind/solar any slack relative to established fossil-fuel? Oh right, that wouldn't fit your narrative, would it?

Of course, ultimately, the article is irrelevant.

no - the article is highly relevant, particularly for the likes of you who are so adamant in insisting that fossil-fuels are cheap, that renewables are expensive, that renewables aren't viable, etc..

The fact that germany provides subsidies to wind/solar projects suggests that the conditions aren't right to make alternative energy cheaper there, regardless of what the case is in Australia.

you have the nerve.. the gall... to slam Germany's deployment of renewables with a reference to subsidies. I provided an accounting of the levels of German subsidies for hard coal, lignite, nuclear and renewables - perhaps you should have another look at that graphic, hey?

[segnosaur]

from Ghosthack

The thing is with nuclear power, if there is a mess, it's a huge one.

Yes, a nuclear disaster could be difficult to clean up. But that's an issue of risk management... All forms of power generation have risks. The question is, do you accept the risk of Nuclear power (where a big disaster could kill hundreds, even though we've never had a disaster that big in the west in over half a century since the first nuclear plant went on line), or do you stick to coal, oil, and/or renewables, which have shown to have killed many times that number in the same time period.

Two years later Fukushima is still spewing out a lot of radioactive material.

Define 'a lot'.

Here's a chart from XKCD that kind of puts the amount of radiation in context:

http://xkcd.com/radiation/

In a 2-week time, Fukushima was exposing people to an average of 1mSv of radiation in the 'exclusion zone'. The amount of radiation that's been statistically linked to Cancer is 100mSv. In other words, you could spend almost an entire year in the Fukushima "exclusion zone" and still not get enough radiation to cause death.

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.

No, as other posters have stated, nuclear waste can be reprocessed. Un-fissioned material can be removed and fed back into the reactor.

Some of the 'depleted uranium' can be used to manufacture things like tank armor, although there are also some civilian uses (radiation shielding, ballast, etc.)

Once reprocessed, the volume of extremely hazardous material is greatly reduced.

- 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?

That's not the question you should be asking (at least not if your concern is the environment.) You should be asking how many resources something needs all the way from raw material extraction (prior to manufacturing), all the way through to final disposal after the end of its lifetime.

Yes, a solar panel doesn't need any material input once its installed, but overall (once the complete life cycle is taken into account) it will probably need more resources per kwh.

[kairos]

We have the technology its here, its a reality. There is no excuse to make the switch. Other than to keep the greedy's pockets filled at the expense of the general population who has to pay for it.

[TimG]

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.

First, meltdowns are not a problem in themselves if they are contained. The damaged reactor was a problem but, as I said, it was not a problem caused by the earthquake. It was a result of the tsunami. The argument that nuclear reactors cannot be built safely in quake zones is clearly false.

Second, Japan decided to do that but as the economic implications are becoming clearer (i.e. the huge cost of importing fossil fuels) many Japanese are reconsidering that position. We will see what happens.

[Accountability Now]

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.

Here is a good article referencing titled "Solyndra Stunk. The Green Stimulus Didn't."....pretty self explanitory.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/09/solyndra-stunk-the-green-stimulus-didnt/

First line from the article: The federal clean-energy loan guarantee program that gave you Solyndra wasn’t just a multibillion-dollar political debacle – it also didn’t create jobs, didn’t reduce carbon emissions and ran up financial risk for taxpayers.

Furthermore, the article cites how the DOE Loan Guarantee program was a mistake:

Aldy is particularly critical of the loan guarantees handed out to the now-bankrupt Solyndra, along with a handful of other firms. The guarantee program was slow moving and bureaucracy-intensive; it took 100 to 200 federal officials and contractors to decide who would receive the eight loan guarantees. It left taxpayers with a $500 million liability when Solyndra folded and no discernible benefits across the board.

There were a lot of lessons learned from how and when to do this green stimulus.

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.

I tried to find a site that showed both job numbers and this is the best I could do in short time. I am only using this site for the job numbers....not the agenda he is pushing. http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbradley/2012/02/13/president-obamas-green-jobs-mirage/

Lets see....by Obama's statement there are 2.7 million people working in green energy today. Contrast that with 9.2 million people in oil. So roughly 3x the amount of people today. Other sites said that in the next few years they expect the solar industry to kick up 100,000 more jobs in the next few years. Still doesn't come close to the 9.2M. You have to concede to the fact that TODAY the oil industry in the US provides a greater job output than green energy. Is that substantiated enough for you? We don't even need to address Canada as we know what is driving the economy currently here.

Your point however said....today and FUTURE potentials. Green energy might be able to take over as the leader. I won't argue it however I wouldn't bank on it either.

[GostHacked]

TimG, on 21 Feb 2013 - 16:37, said:

First, meltdowns are not a problem in themselves if they are contained. The damaged reactor was a problem but, as I said, it was not a problem caused by the earthquake. It was a result of the tsunami. The argument that nuclear reactors cannot be built safely in quake zones is clearly false.

Actually Fukushima shows that you are wrong. The tsunami was caused by the quake, so indirectly the quake was the cause of the whole problem. No quake, no tsunami. Also there were 4 damaged reactors, not just one. And we 3 meltdowns and one melt-through. All of those were confirmed by TEPCO and Japan months after many suspected and were called crazy.

Second, Japan decided to do that but as the economic implications are becoming clearer (i.e. the huge cost of importing fossil fuels) many Japanese are reconsidering that position. We will see what happens.

Whatever the reasons are, the fact is Japan made the decision to have the remaining nuke sites shut down. Edited February 21, 2013 by GostHacked

[TimG]

Actually Fukushima shows that you are wrong. The tsunami was caused by the quake, so indirectly the quake was the cause of the whole problem. No quake, no tsunami. Also there were 4 damaged reactors, not just one. And we 3 meltdowns and one melt-through. All of those were confirmed by TEPCO and Japan months after many suspected and were called crazy.Whatever the reasons are, the fact is Japan made the decision to have the remaining nuke sites shut down.

The assertion I was refuting was the claim that nuclear reactors cannot be built safely in quake zones which is clearly false since 12+ reactors shutdown safely after the quake. Not all quake zones are subject to tsunamis.

A tsunami is a risk in places even when there is no quake risk (see Boxing Day 2006).

Your obsession with the word 'meltdown' is tiresome. meltdowns are high risk events because the fission reaction *could* restart but the simple fact that a meltdown occurred is not evidence of a problem that cannot be managed.

Edited February 21, 2013 by TimG

[waldo]

Here is a good article referencing titled "Solyndra Stunk. The Green Stimulus Didn't."....pretty self explanitory.

yes - "self-explanatory" to someone, like yourself, predisposed to ignoring independent, unbiased review of both the U.S. DOE Loan Guarantee Program and of Solyndra, one of the applicants within the program. I gave you a couple of independent, unbiased link references that did that review... you simply choose to ignore them.

There were a lot of lessons learned from how and when to do this green stimulus.

yes, given the overwhelming success of the U.S. DOE Loan Guarantee program, of the many successes over the few failures, there was an overall recognition that the program was a huge success, that federal loan guarantees for energy projects were very successful, cost-effective investments. The program included a risk factor... the failures (of which Solyndra was one) did not even meet the projections on the programs worst case risk analysis - the overall program cost $2 billion dollars less than expected. Do you actually believe that corporations are 100% successful in new endevours... or do you just hold the government to a higher level of (success) expectation?

I tried to find a site that showed both job numbers and this is the best I could do in short time. I am only using this site for the job numbers....not the agenda he is pushing.

right... I'll be sure to give careful consideration to something written by an adjunct scholar of both the Cato Institute and of the Competitive Enterprise Institute... the guy who had a 15+ year career with Enron, the guy who was the Director of Public Policy Analysis at Enron, as well as a regulatory adviser to Enron.

[shortlived]

Well I think was needs to happen is microreactors because they provide sufficient power, are more distributed and are "safe" in case of failure, just shutting themselves down. The centralization of power sytems needs to stop we need to put micro nuke plants distributed throughout Canada, paired up with alternative energy systems. Of course nuclear power needs to be monopolized based on its heat for foundary work, refining and other applications, not just energy production. For example sudbury and fort mac are two good examples of excellent points for micronuke placement. The ring of fire /nakina (on a movable platform) is another, for developments up there.

Edmonton is perhaps another good point.

Edited February 21, 2013 by shortlived

[Accountability Now]

yes - "self-explanatory" to someone, like yourself, predisposed to ignoring independent, unbiased review of both the U.S. DOE Loan Guarantee Program and of Solyndra, one of the applicants within the program.

Joseph Aldy helped craft the Recovery Act and is now harshly critical of the DOE Loan program stating that grants or tax breaks would be far more effective in the future. Are you telling me you wouldn't accept the opinion of someone in his informed position. Or is it that you only listen to people who 100% agree with you.

The program included a risk factor... the failures (of which Solyndra was one)

So by your own admissions Solyndra was a failure yet you jump all over me when I state the very same thing. Classy!

right... I'll be sure to give careful consideration to something written by an adjunct scholar of both the Cato Institute and of the Competitive Enterprise Institute... the guy who had a 15+ year career with Enron, the guy who was the Director of Public Policy Analysis at Enron, as well as a regulatory adviser to Enron.

Wow...I even stated that I was only using that site to extract the number for jobs in each sector. However once again you ignore the content of the conversation. In that article he goes on to make various claims about how the 2.7M was embellished but I DID NOT bring that up because I specifically said I was not supporting his agenda.

Other sites use the 9.2 M for the oil sector so as a worst case scenario I will assume they are somewhat accurate. Based on these numbers, it is a 3x (actually 3.4X to be precise) difference. Its obvious that you threw up this Enron stuff to create a diversion from the facts presented which subsequently proves that you agree to my point. If that is the best you have then I will consider it a victory.

[TimG]

Wow...I even stated that I was only using that site to extract the number for jobs in each sector. However once again you ignore the content of the conversation. In that article he goes on to make various claims about how the 2.7M was embellished but I DID NOT bring that up because I specifically said I was not supporting his agenda

This is classic waldo. If you provide facts he does not like he completely ignores them and hurls ad homs at your source. Sometimes he will even claim a source must be completely ignored because of the *advertising* that shows up on the page.

What waldo is trying to do is change the topic and hope you will forget about the point you were making.

Edited February 21, 2013 by TimG

[waldo]

yes - "self-explanatory" to someone, like yourself, predisposed to ignoring independent, unbiased review of both the U.S. DOE Loan Guarantee Program and of Solyndra, one of the applicants within the program. I gave you a couple of independent, unbiased link references that did that review... you simply choose to ignore them.

Joseph Aldy helped craft the Recovery Act and is now harshly critical of the DOE Loan program stating that grants or tax breaks would be far more effective in the future. Are you telling me you wouldn't accept the opinion of someone in his informed position. Or is it that you only listen to people who 100% agree with you.

again, you choose to ignore the unbiased, independent reviews I presented. Your linked article's writer, and you by extension, take liberties with Aldy's study... your word "harsh" is harsh. Yes, from the standpoint of altering the risk-return balance, Aldy does subscribe to grants/tax credits being a better/preferred alternative... simply because it provides a possibility to, "increase a projects’ returns by lowering the amount of private sector capital that needs to be raised for a project". Harsh!!!

in any case, within the links I provided (the links you ignore), a complete analysis was done down to the respective applicant level. The overall success of the DOE Loan Guarantee Program reflects on that granular level analysis.

So by your own admissions Solyndra was a failure yet you jump all over me when I state the very same thing. Classy!

classy??? Wow - just how sensitive are you? Yes, Solyndra wasn't one of the successful program applicants. What you perceived as my, "jumping all over you", was simply a relative measure of how your types over-inflate the importance of a Solyndra in the greater mix of program applicants (i.e., politicize it to hell). Here's a handy graphic for you to chew on... it reflects only one classification grouping (of 3, each with their own respective applicants)... as you can see, Solyndra represented but a mere 3% of the sub-grouping within the overall program - "mice nuts"!

[waldo]

right... I'll be sure to give careful consideration to something written by an adjunct scholar of both the Cato Institute and of the Competitive Enterprise Institute... the guy who had a 15+ year career with Enron, the guy who was the Director of Public Policy Analysis at Enron, as well as a regulatory adviser to Enron.

Wow...I even stated that I was only using that site to extract the number for jobs in each sector. However once again you ignore the content of the conversation. In that article he goes on to make various claims about how the 2.7M was embellished but I DID NOT bring that up because I specifically said I was not supporting his agenda.

Other sites use the 9.2 M for the oil sector so as a worst case scenario I will assume they are somewhat accurate. Based on these numbers, it is a 3x (actually 3.4X to be precise) difference. Its obvious that you threw up this Enron stuff to create a diversion from the facts presented which subsequently proves that you agree to my point. If that is the best you have then I will consider it a victory.

victory!!! Get a grip. I didn't give your article the time of day - I certainly wouldn't consider anything written by 'your guy' as factual... and I gave you the reason why, regardless of whether or not you/TimG consider highlighting the guy's background/associations as adHom! Have you ever heard of the Cato Institute, of CEI... of Enron!

in any case, have a chew on the following:

...here's your opportunity to review a real independent (U.S.) analysis - from Brookings (2011) - Sizing the Clean Economy: A National and Regional Green Jobs Assessment:

(note: Brookings somewhat uses multiple terms, “green” or “clean” or “low-carbon economy”, under the same broad definition => defined as the sector of the economy that produces goods and services with an environmental benefit)

- The clean economy, which employs some 2.7 million workers, encompasses a significant number of jobs in establishments spread across a diverse group of industries.

- Though modest in size, the clean economy employs more workers than the fossil fuel industry and bulks larger than bioscience but remains smaller than the IT-producing sectors.

- The clean economy grew more slowly in aggregate than the national economy between 2003 and 2010, but newer “cleantech” segments produced explosive job gains and the clean economy outperformed the nation during the recession.

- Median wages in the clean economy are 13 percent higher than median U.S. created from 2003 to 2010 congregate in the nation’s 100 largest metro areas.

- The clean energy sector in particular grew by 8.3 percent between 2003 and 2010, nearly twice as fast as the overall economy

[Accountability Now]

victory!!! Get a grip. I didn't give your article the time of day - I certainly wouldn't consider anything written by 'your guy' as factual... and I gave you the reason why, regardless of whether or not you/TimG consider highlighting the guy's background/associations as adHom! Have you ever heard of the Cato Institute, of CEI... of Enron!

You really are a little slow....aren't you. I have said twice now that the article was not chosen for the content. He is NOT 'my guy'. I used the article because it contained both employment figures on the same page. Unlike you, I don't have all day to troll the internet as such I trying to make it easier. I only used the numbers and nothing from the author's point of view. And yes I have heard of Cato, CEI....and I actually worked for a company owned by Enron....so yes...I know all about them.

in any case, have a chew on the following:

Are you kiddiing me with the Brookings study? You and I are directly comparing clean ENERGY versus fossil fuel ENERGY. The Brooking study is about Clean ECONOMY which includes all jobs from wastewater and water treatment, mass transit, environmental remediation, conservation...etc. All of those things would be around with or wiithout fossill fuels. Furthermore, those industries I named make up the bulk of the jobs for which they say gives the Clean Economy more jobs and more growth than fossil fuels so that doesn't help your point. And finally....I find it ironic that a lot of these clean economy jobs are driven from fossil fuel production any way. Environmental remediaton for example....lots of jobs and money in the remediation of oil field leases.

Seriously...you have lost credibility by citing this. It is obvious that you are only stretching to avoid the disgrace of losing the arguement. In consolation, I have and will agree that clean energy can and maybe the way of the future but its simply not what drives the economy today. As such, it has somewhat of a limit to how far any goverment will push it.

[waldo]

You really are a little slow....aren't you. I have said twice now that the article was not chosen for the content. He is NOT 'my guy'. I used the article because it contained both employment figures on the same page. Unlike you, I don't have all day to troll the internet as such I trying to make it easier. I only used the numbers and nothing from the author's point of view. And yes I have heard of Cato, CEI....and I actually worked for a company owned by Enron....so yes...I know all about them.

??? a little slow... all day to troll the internet! Huh! I simply cut and pasted a quote of something I previously wrote over a year ago... it doesn't take long to use MLW search and cut and paste previous MLW posts... you know that, right? Do you typically get this rattled so easily? Let's recap: you threw down an article link from a most biased source and expected/claimed to differentiate the article "content" from the author... and yet, your so-called content that you presume to so differentiate over, the "9.2 million oil industry jobs", comes directly (unsourced and unsubstantiated) from your article's author. Not only is the number unsourced/unsubstantiated, there 's also no date attachment to ascertain how it lines up against the Brookings study. But some how this number that you're placing your whole emphasis on, somehow, that number isn't "article content" to you! Wow! You do take liberties, don't you? Here's a gentle reminder of exactly what you wrote... you simply ran with the number (the unsourced and unsubstantiated number):

Lets see....by Obama's statement there are 2.7 million people working in green energy today. Contrast that with 9.2 million people in oil. So roughly 3x the amount of people today. Other sites said that in the next few years they expect the solar industry to kick up 100,000 more jobs in the next few years. Still doesn't come close to the 9.2M. You have to concede to the fact that TODAY the oil industry in the US provides a greater job output than green energy. Is that substantiated enough for you? We don't even need to address Canada as we know what is driving the economy currently here.

,

,

Are you kiddiing me with the Brookings study? You and I are directly comparing clean ENERGY versus fossil fuel ENERGY. The Brooking study is about Clean ECONOMY which includes all jobs from wastewater and water treatment, mass transit, environmental remediation, conservation...etc. All of those things would be around with or wiithout fossill fuels. Furthermore, those industries I named make up the bulk of the jobs for which they say gives the Clean Economy more jobs and more growth than fossil fuels so that doesn't help your point. And finally....I find it ironic that a lot of these clean economy jobs are driven from fossil fuel production any way. Environmental remediaton for example....lots of jobs and money in the remediation of oil field leases.

Seriously...you have lost credibility by citing this. It is obvious that you are only stretching to avoid the disgrace of losing the arguement. In consolation, I have and will agree that clean energy can and maybe the way of the future but its simply not what drives the economy today. As such, it has somewhat of a limit to how far any goverment will push it.

you clearly have no standing to speak on credibility - you reference an article from a most biased author and run wild with a totally unsourced/unsubstantiated/undated number. And you speak of credibility! If you don't like the Brookings number, the 2010 2.7 million jobs number, if you don't care for the classification and makeup of the so-called 'clean economy', perhaps you should take it up with the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labour Statistics:

In 2010, 3.1 million jobs in the United States were associated with the production of green goods and services, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Green Goods and Services (GGS) jobs are found in businesses that produce goods and provide services that benefit the environment or conserve natural resources.

of course, classification is key... I look forward to you providing your own classification and supporting makeup numbers in line with the '9 million' number you so favour! You take the most self-serving liberty while presuming to denigrate the types of jobs being associated with the 'clean/green economy'. I look forward to your breakout numbers, particularly the ones that really like to leverage convenience store workers from convenience retail outlets that sell gas/diesel... you know, like the Simpson's Apu/Kwik-E-Mart!

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Do the math: calculate how much algae would have to be grown and processed (along with the water, fertilizer and energy inputs) to make any significant contribution to our energy needs and you will find that it is not a remotely plausible solution at this time.

This solution can be run in the desert, in the sun as energy input. It was estimated that they'd need 1/7th of the space that corn crops use, as desert, to make this feasible.

I haven't looked into it for a few years but, it was the idea was conceived at the "alternative fuel source" time when oil companies were spending mass amounts of money to shut out other ideas and red herring hydrogen to everyone... because it could be 50 years into the future.

Edited February 22, 2013 by MiddleClassCentrist

[waldo]

This solution can be run in the desert, in the sun as energy input. It was estimated that they'd need 1/7th of the space that corn crops use, as desert, to make this feasible.

this simply follows MLW member, 'TimG's', steadfast refusal to accept any alternative energy strategies might be a part of the overall mix. Solazyme is a profitable company that has scaled algae and continues to further scale it to production levels:

[Accountability Now]

and yet, your so-called content that you presume to so differentiate over, the "9.2 million oil industry jobs", comes directly (unsourced and unsubstantiated) from your article's author.

The 9.2 million comes from the Pricewaterhouse Coopers study via the API.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/54535552/The-Economic-Impacts-of-the-Oil-and-Natural-Gas-Industry-on-the-U-S-Economy-in-2009

The API is the only group thus far to actually estimate the OVERALL impact of the oil and gas industry. Why? Because this would be a costly study which yes...they can afford. Even in your Brookings study they explain that doing such studies it would be too costly for them (Pg 15). No one at this point has gone to the extent to show their own proof, rather they take pot shots at the API/ PWC study by saying the same thing you did...."You can't use gas station attendents?". The last time I checked....a job is a job. I know its your liberal belief that we should all be making six figure salaries however that just isn't realistic. There are a million sites out there that all give their take on the API study but no one has actually stepped up and done a study of their own which encompasses the true market. Brookings study tries to do this...but they are measuring the Clean Ecomony....not just Clean Energy. Apples to Apples Waldo.

If you don't like the Brookings number, the 2010 2.7 million jobs number, if you don't care for the classification and makeup of the so-called 'clean economy', perhaps you should take it up with the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labour Statistics:

Even the Brookings study doesn't use the Department of Labor's Bureau so why should I? Again...read PG 15 of the Brooking Study where they say:

"The studies reviewed showed that neither of the standard classification systems used in the BLS data, the North American Industry Classifi cation System (NAICS) or the Standard Occupational Classifi cation (SOC), identifi es a green or environmental grouping of industries or occupations.”

So a new approach was taken using DUNS and NETS. Come on...read your own study! Besides, the BLS breaks everything down based on job...not industry. They have seperate categories for Accountants. Do you not think oil companies have accountants? Do you not think accounting firms like PWC make money off annual financial statements?

of course, classification is key... I look forward to you providing your own classification and supporting makeup numbers in line with the '9 million' number you so favour! You take the most self-serving liberty while presuming to denigrate the types of jobs being associated with the 'clean/green economy'. I look forward to your breakout numbers, particularly the ones that really like to leverage convenience store workers from convenience retail outlets that sell gas/diesel... you know, like the Simpson's Apu/Kwik-E-Mart!

Classification is KEY. Which is why your Brookings study fails. It over classifies and adds everything under the sun just to get numbers. However, this same study states there are 2.4 Million jobs DIRECTLY related to Oil and Gas. This number so conveniently misses out on fuel dealers, petroleum wholesalers OR as you like to put it the millions of people like Apu at the Kwik E Mart. They chose NOT to classify something that SHOULD be. Again...last time I checked a job is a job. The guy at the gas station isn't pumping solar energy....he's pumping gas. How is that not related? Wow....slow indeed.

The thing that you will never understand (probably because you work in some government institution and don't see the effects of real life) is that you can take ALL the numbers you want and throw them out the window because nothing is more indicative of how oil and gas affects a market then when there is a bust in the oilfield. We saw that in 2008 here in Alberta when the market slowed up. Welders, janitors, accountants, receptionists, service technicians, millwrights, truck drivers....YOU NAME IT....all out of work because the oil dried up for a year. All of the companies out there that distribute products, sell services, and do significant business with oil companies all go belly up or come close to it just because of the price of oil. When is the last time you've heard someone say....Man that solar panel industry is killing me! Or better yet....when you hear those whiners complaining about the Petro Dollar....I wonder why you never hear them talk about the Green Dollar? Keep you head in the sand Waldo....its much better there.

[TimG]

This solution can be run in the desert, in the sun as energy input. It was estimated that they'd need 1/7th of the space that corn crops use, as desert, to make this feasible.

I haven't looked into it for a few years but, it was the idea was conceived at the "alternative fuel source" time when oil companies were spending mass amounts of money to shut out other ideas and red herring hydrogen to everyone... because it could be 50 years into the future.

All someone needs to do is find an alternative that can produce a liquid fuel equivalent at a price per kWH that is comparable to oil and they will change society over night with the oil companies leading the charge to become the leading producers, refiners and distributors of these new products. The trouble for renewables is they are no where near that cost point and no one knows if they will ever reach that point.

No one is trying to shut down anything. It is basic physics and chemistry that are the problem.

Edited February 22, 2013 by TimG

[g_bambino]

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.

I'm not really sure what "our country" has to do with this; neither housing nor municipalities are the federal government's responsibility. Towns and communities like the one in the article linked in the OP, and the developers thereof, take those kind of sustainable design initiatives on themselves. In Canada, we have the LEED standards being applied more and more to building projects of all kinds, though I don't know of any communities or residential developments in Canada that have received LEED certification, yet. The firm I work for is striving to have every employee involved in design and construction LEED specialty accredited (I'm half way there!), since this has essentially become an industry standard now and isn't likely to be going away any time soon.

[kairos]

There is alot the government can and should do. Signing Kyoto was the no brainer to begin with. Tax incentives for alternative energy is a good one, but the government should also be using renewable energy resources for electricity. That means ditching the coal and gas plants, and using geothermal, wind, and solar.

[shortlived]

I really don't think anything should be ditched facilities should be converted to serve other functions, but also be available if required, like nuclear winter, coal still works if the sun goes out. Also what happened if a high solar flare period kicked up or a EMP blast, solar systems might be fried, likewise wind systems are infrequent for power generation. You will still need some nuclear and coal systems to back things, but gas (specifically) methane is the #1 energy system that should be concentrated on because it is naturally generated.

Example coal plants could have their facilities converted to produce nano carbon products.

Like one flukey Coronal Mass Ejection (CME) and there goes your alternative. Of course electricity demand would drop substantially for a while.

Edited February 23, 2013 by shortlived

[kairos]

Well OK I don't have a problem with about 10% running on those as opposed to 90% just as to ensure that things run smoothly and can be used as backup.