Cap and Trade and Yes and No

[On Guard for Thee]

Lucky for us, Orville and Wilbur had a much different point of view.

[TimG]

Lucky for us, Orville and Wilbur had a much different point of view.

Except current policies are going to create more Guido Franches than Wright Brothers. Edited May 28, 2015 by TimG

[Wilber]

My knowledge of the engineering problems associated with these kinds of ideas come from the education and work. When I see a press release I can see if information has been omitted and can make a good guess about where the troubles will come from.

So you are guessing. Now we are getting somewhere.

Audi knows what they are doing and they could be completely aware that the scheme is not viable but it is still useful to them as a company. You are the one making the *assumption* that since Audi is investing money they must think it is viable. I simply pointed out that your assumption is not true.

Unlike you, I am not assuming anything, other than they wouldn't knowingly invest in a dead end, particularly in an area that is so critical to the success of their business. You have to invest in order to find out if something is viable.

I have enough knowledge of manufacturing processes to know what is plausible. These processes don't do well if they are constantly halted due to power interruptions. But in this case it is not impossible - it just represents a source of increased costs.

Maybe and maybe not but you just assume this hasn't been taken into account. Why do you assume so much?

No. Just the wonky smoke and mirror concepts created by businesses trying to cash in on the CO2 obsession.

To you, anything that tries to limit CO2 emissions is just a wonky smoke and mirror concept, so why should I take you seriously?

[TimG]

To you, anything that tries to limit CO2 emissions is just a wonky smoke and mirror concept, so why should I take you seriously?

Nuclear is not smoke and mirrors. Natural gas instead of coal is not smoke and mirrors. Gradual increases in efficiency is not smoke and mirrors. Smoke and mirrors: solar, wind, biofuels, carbon credits.

[On Guard for Thee]

What would the National Bank of Abu Dhabi know about oil eh...

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/even-at-10barrel-oil-cant-match-solar-on-cost-37540

[TimG]

What would the National Bank of Abu Dhabi know about oil eh...

It clearly knows nothing about electricity production:

The bank says intermittency of wind and solar is not an issue...

My challenge to all renewable advocates: if they are really so cost competitive then eliminate all renewable mandates and preferential tariffs and let the market choose the best option.

It is pretty clear that no one will touch these technologies without subsidies because the true cost due come from the intermittency and the need for backup. i.e. why build a NatGas plant and run it 50% of the time to back of wind and solar when you can skip the wind and solar and run the NatGas plant 100% of the time for less money.

Edited May 28, 2015 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

It clearly knows nothing about electricity production:

My challenge to all renewable advocates: if they are really so cost competitive then eliminate all renewable mandates and preferential tariffs and let the market choose the best option.

It is pretty clear that no one will touch these technologies without subsidies because the true cost due come from the intermittency and the need for backup. i.e. why build a NatGas plant and run it 50% of the time to back of wind and solar when you can skip the wind and solar and run the NatGas plant 100% of the time for less money.

I would say one of the largest banks in one of the richest oil producing areas on the planet has some idea of what the market is up to. They quite clearly state that future investments are heading for renewables ad that costs of solar are already lower than gas for energy production. Perhaps the new Orville and Wilbur will have more eastern sounding names.

[TimG]

They quite clearly state that future investments are heading for renewables ad that costs of solar are already lower than gas for energy production.

And they are completely delusional or have ulterior motives for making such a bogus claim. Like I said: if what they say is true then we can end all preferential incentives for solar and wind and the market will deploy them. I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen because the people pushing these technologies know the real numbers and would protest any attempt to cut their subsidies.

[Wilber]

Nuclear is not smoke and mirrors. Natural gas instead of coal is not smoke and mirrors. Gradual increases in efficiency is not smoke and mirrors. Smoke and mirrors: solar, wind, biofuels, carbon credits.

So your solution is to install a nuclear reactor in every car? The idea behind this is to use electricity to produce a portable liquid fuel that can be used in existing vehicles using existing engines, using the existing supply system.

Solar is definitely not smoke an mirrors in areas that get a lot of year round sun, or wind in areas that have a lot of year round wind. They can't completely replace other sources but they can do a lot to augment them. The biggest problem with them is storing the power they can produce when it is not needed. Using that power to produce a fuel is one way of storing it.

[Wilber]

And they are completely delusional or have ulterior motives for making such a bogus claim. Like I said: if what they say is true then we can end all preferential incentives for solar and wind and the market will deploy them. I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen because the people pushing these technologies know the real numbers and would protest any attempt to cut their subsidies.

If you live in a desert in southern latitudes, (or northern latitudes if you are in the southern hemisphere) solar makes a ton of sense. Not so much in Iceland which has crappy weather and lots of geothermal sources. To make a blanket statement like that is just ridiculous.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Wilber

[TimG]

The idea behind this is to use electricity to produce a portable liquid fuel that can be used in existing vehicles using existing engines, using the existing supply system.

Great idea if it can be done at a reasonable cost.

They can't completely replace other sources but they can do a lot to augment them.

10-15% of average grid productions can be renewables. It is more than zero but I don't think that qualifies as a "a lot".

The biggest problem with them is storing the power they can produce when it is not needed. Using that power to produce a fuel is one way of storing it.

Yes it is but only if you can build a factory that runs entirely on unpredictable "unneeded power". A pretty daunting engineering challenge.

[Wilber]

Great idea if it can be done at a reasonable cost.

Good, glad you think so.

10-15% of average grid productions can be renewables. It is more than zero but I don't think that qualifies as a "a lot".

Again, a blanket statement for widely different circumstances

Yes it is but only if you can build a factory that runs entirely on unpredictable "unneeded power". A pretty daunting engineering challenge.

Does it have to? The point is, you can use power that would otherwise be unusable. I imagine there would be a tradeoff somewhere which would depend a lot on what conventional sources had to be used and how much.

[TimG]

Again, a blanket statement for widely different circumstances

Any modern technological society needs a grid that reliably delivers power 24x7. These grids can tolerate about 10-15% non-dispatchable sources. If you have a village in Africa with no power they would likely be happy with the periodic power delivered by renewables but they will eventually need the same type of grid as everyone else if they hope to develop economically.

Does it have to? The point is, you can use power that would otherwise be unusable. I imagine there would be a tradeoff somewhere which would depend a lot on what conventional sources had to be used and how much.

In practice there would be a spot price for electricity and you would run the plant whenever the spot price dropped below a certain level. It is hypothetically possible to find price level that would work but the capital cost would be amortized over the hours the plant is in operation which increases the cost per unit of production. With natural gas plants in Germany this factor is making them uneconomic which is why I think it would be tough for a fuel plant to operate on the same principal. Edited May 28, 2015 by TimG

[Argus]

I would say one of the largest banks in one of the richest oil producing areas on the planet has some idea of what the market is up to. They quite clearly state that future investments are heading for renewables ad that costs of solar are already lower than gas for energy production. Perhaps the new Orville and Wilbur will have more eastern sounding names.

These take into account huge public subsidies. The cost for solar and wind power in Ontario are many times higher than the cost for gas, hydro and nuclear.

That's why our power costs have doubled since the idiot Liberals have started embracing green energy. Solar and Wind power account for 4% of generating capacity but account for 20% of costs.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Argus

[On Guard for Thee]

These take into account huge public subsidies. The cost for solar and wind power in Ontario are many times higher than the cost for gas, hydro and nuclear.

That's why our power costs have doubled since the idiot Liberals have started embracing green energy.

If you read the article you will find it is without subsidies. However of course, the geographical location of the area certainly has a large impact. But we can look forward to benefitting from their advances in the technology.

[eyeball]

if what they say is true then we can end all preferential incentives for solar and wind and the market will deploy them.

I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen because the people pushing these technologies know the real numbers and would protest any attempt to cut their subsidies.

Of course they would because they wouldn't be able to compete against the preferential incentives and subsidies fossil fuels get. End those too and you've got a deal.

[eyeball]

These take into account huge public subsidies. The cost for solar and wind power in Ontario are many times higher than the cost for gas, hydro and nuclear.

That's why our power costs have doubled since the idiot Liberals have started embracing green energy. Solar and Wind power account for 4% of generating capacity but account for 20% of costs.

Most of this ridiculous state of affairs is due to lax public attitudes towards accountability and transparency in their governance. All we need to do is demand better. We have all the technology we need to provide for better monitoring, validating and auditing of the public domain's decision making and execution practices. All that's lacking is the public will to put it to use.

Blaming ideology completely misses the point.

[Wilber]

These take into account huge public subsidies. The cost for solar and wind power in Ontario are many times higher than the cost for gas, hydro and nuclear.

That's why our power costs have doubled since the idiot Liberals have started embracing green energy. Solar and Wind power account for 4% of generating capacity but account for 20% of costs.

I don't know what goes on in Ontario but the fact is, solar is getting cheaper by the day. Solar panels cost half of what they did five years ago. Once you have built the infrastructure, all you have to do is maintain it. The energy you are using to produce electricity is free.

[TimG]

Of course they would because they wouldn't be able to compete against the preferential incentives and subsidies fossil fuels get. End those too and you've got a deal.

That is easy: the alleged subsidies in developed countries are largely a figment of your imagination and have no impact in the viability of alternatives - especially when you look at all of the taxes and and royalties levied on fossil fuels. The developing world is another story but that is not really relevant to the discussion of alternatives here. Edited May 29, 2015 by TimG

[TimG]

I don't know what goes on in Ontario but the fact is, solar is getting cheaper by the day. Solar panels cost half of what they did five years ago. Once you have built the infrastructure, all you have to do is maintain it. The energy you are using to produce electricity is free.

Not true. Panels get dirty and need to be washed. They degrade over time and need to be replaced. But the real cost of the solar panels comes from the need to provide a non-renewable backup for every watt of power produced because the lights can't go out just because it is a cloudy day. That is why solar would not be economical even if the panels were free. Edited May 29, 2015 by TimG

[Wilber]

Not true. Panels get dirty and need to be washed. They degrade over time and need to be replaced. But the real cost of the solar panels comes from the need to provide a non-renewable backup for every watt of power produced because the lights can't go out just because it is a cloudy day. That is why solar would not be economical even if the panels were free.

I said they need to be maintained and everything wears out regardless of how you are producing power.

Anyway, you should be telling this to California and Arizona, they are still building wind and solar generation.

[TimG]

Anyway, you should be telling this to California and Arizona, they are still building wind and solar generation.

And they are depending on imports from other states to cover them when the wind don't blow and the sun don't shine. This allows them to hide the cost of renewables. That said, desert locations are better than most when it comes to siting solar panels provided you don't have too many dust storms. Edited May 29, 2015 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

And they are depending on imports from other states to cover them when the wind don't blow and the sun don't shine. This allows them to hide the cost of renewables. That said, desert locations are better than most when it comes to siting solar panels provided you don't have too many dust storms.

Sounds like you are trying to discredit, ignore, the production they are accomplishing. Hard to do that since Cal. has the largest solar farm on the planet.

[TimG]

Sounds like you are trying to discredit, ignore, the production they are accomplishing.

The problems with renewables are well known and they have not been solved by California. Between 10-15% of grid power can come from renewables. Exceed that limit and costs skyrocket. Note that in California's case the grid includes the entire Western US so they can afford to have excess solar as long as their neighbors keep using coal and gas. Edited May 29, 2015 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

The problems with renewables are well known and they have not been solved by California. Between 10-15% of grid power can come from renewables. Exceed that limit and costs skyrocket. Note that in California's case the grid includes the entire Western US so they can afford to have excess solar as long as their neighbors keep using coal and gas.

How about the problem with being happy to sit in the same rut forever. California, as well as many others aren't willing to do that so they have made progress, and will continue to advance the technology. Many other states as well. But if sitting on the porch is your thing, that's OK too.