Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Hannibal]

There's no free market for petroleum-based energy either.

As for cost assumptions in that screenshot, well, I'd assume they are in there because that's standard. Morgan Stanley's analysts aren't true believer/cheerleaders, and have clients with a sufficient degree of sophistication. And, what the heck else would represent costs? You don't pay the sun.

You do pay for upkeep though, which is why I am wondering.

And in general power companies aren't wedded to fossil fuels. Nothing is stopping Arizona Power, inc from building a solar or a wind farm if it makes sense to them. If they aren't adopting this approach on a broad scale then it tells me that the slide numbers are probably bullshit.

[iam416]

Overall in the US though, you have a great opportunity to connect the most solar-rich area, in the southwest, to a population-rich area up and down the coast.

Correct. That's where I see it as most viably contributing to the grid. I have to think storage technologies will eventually emerge that make the systems more viable in less favorable areas, but that's still relatively nascent, as I understand it. They've done great work getting to an efficient, effective PV cell and system, though.

You are right. Petroleum-based products are subject to an astronomical amount of taxes and regulations that masssively drive up their costs. The only non-market benefit that fossil fuel based products like oil and gas have is the use of eminent domain, which they do pay out the ass for. But there is no free market alternative to it.

Well, you'll like this Hannibal. I believe Spain invested a shit-ton of money in solar and solar now accounts for a healthy portion of its energy. Now that solar is up and running and on its own, the Spanish government taxes solar use to recoup some of its investment.

[hack]

[iam416]

And in general power companies aren't wedded to fossil fuels. Nothing is stopping Arizona Power, inc from building a solar or a wind farm if it makes sense to them. If they aren't adopting this approach on a broad scale then it tells me that the slide numbers are probably bullshit.

Not only are they not wedded to fossil fuels they are, in some states, incentivized to go renewables and, in California, required to buy renewables.

I understand that in this particular market their may be a place for government funding. However, at this stage I think solar, at least, is getting to a maturity level that allows for direct competition. And if it's better, it's better. Hell, it doesn't even have to be better -- it has to be comparable -- because it has the added marketing cache of being a non-carbon renewable, which the marketplace values.

[hack]

Correct. That's where I see it as most viably contributing to the grid. I have to think storage technologies will eventually emerge that make the systems more viable in less favorable areas, but that's still relatively nascent, as I understand it. They've done great work getting to an efficient, effective PV cell and system, though.



Well, you'll like this Hannibal. I believe Spain invested a shit-ton of money in solar and solar now accounts for a healthy portion of its energy. Now that solar is up and running and on its own, the Spanish government taxes solar use to recoup some of its investment.

I didn't know that about Spain. Cool. You're right about the above. People talk as if we should just sea-change swap out crude for sun and wind, but obviously it doesn't work like that. But taking advantage of renewables where they make the most economic sense will be sufficient. I've seen figures that suggest getting from roughly 18% renewables in global energy consumption, which IIRC is the figure now, to roughly 36%, by 2030, is sufficient for everyone to met their Paris COP21 commitments.

[iam416]

To reiterate my biggest takeaway on solar/gas/oil/? -- energy is no longer a real concern.

It was only 10 years ago that the movie Collapse -- a "docu-drama" on Peak Oil and how we're past the tipping point on our way to self-inflicted ruin -- was critically acclaimed. Indeed, from the NYT:

Since 2001, Mr. Ruppert has devoted his life, two books and a self-published newsletter to connecting the dots between population, economics and energy, and concluding that the center will not hold. Lucidly and with weary conviction, he cites evidence for a declining global oil supply (like costly offshore drilling in Saudi Arabia) and demolishes hopes pinned on substitutes like ethanol (“a complete joke”) and clean coal (“no such thing”).

His well-rehearsed rhetoric is shockingly persuasive, and since the majority of his premises are verifiable, any weakness in his argument lies in inferences so terrifying that reasonable listeners may find themselves taking his advice and stocking up on organic seeds. (Those with no access to land can, postapocalypse, use them as currency.)

[Hannibal]

We're not going to be at peak oil for a long time. There might come a point where the supply of oil is reduced enough for alternatives to make economic sense, but it won't be in our lifetimes.

I'm glad that the guy has taken a shit on ethanol though. Much needed. The cost to society for renewable fuels boondoggles has got to be astronomical. Unfortunately, Trump has expressed his support for them because it helps American farmers so -- meh.

[iam416]

People talk as if we should just sea-change swap out crude for sun and wind, but obviously it doesn't work like that. But taking advantage of renewables where they make the most economic sense will be sufficient. I've seen figures that suggest getting from roughly 18% renewables in global energy consumption, which IIRC is the figure now, to roughly 36%, by 2030, is sufficient for everyone to met their Paris COP21 commitments.

Yeah, that's a nice side benefit. But at it's core it's about cheap energy. Energy access reduces poverty. The cheaper that access the better. If renewables can viably contribute to that goal (and I see no reason why they aren't and won't), then huzzah. Seriously. It's awesome. So, I'm fully on-board but very much with an eye toward cost viability. Natural gas is great, too, and has done its part to lower energy costs in the near-term.

Anywho, yay energy. Yay humans.

[iam416]

I'm glad that the guy has taken a shit on ethanol though. Much needed. The cost to society for renewable fuels boondoggles has got to be astronomical. Unfortunately, Trump has expressed his support for them because it helps American farmers so -- meh.

Yeah, ethanol technology isn't anywhere close to being cost competitive. I don't really see it ever getting there, either. The money spent investing in solar makes sense -- I mean, if you think governments should be doing such things, that's at least an area with promise. Ethanol is hopeless.

I'd rather invest in waste to fuel! Heh. Fuck the Laws of Thermodynamics!

[hack]

The cost to society for renewable fuels boondoggles has got to be astronomical.

You can say that about so many damn things though. The cost of oil is today's Middle East. The cost of technology is today's jobs crisis. The cost of man's inability to transcend his own limitations is the Ohio State University football program. We as humans are all about doing stuff that comes with unanticipated consequences, and looking to come out OK on the other end.

[Wild Hoss]

The cost of oil is today's Middle East.

This. Factor in the trillions we?ve spent on ME policy and interventions, to say nothing of the untold number of lives lost and ruined because of it, and compare that cost to solar subsidies.

GMAFB with this handwringing over the toils and tribulations of the petroindustry.

[Hannibal]

The argument about funding the Middle East is a strong one, but it is taking on decreasing relevance as more American and Canadian sources are tapped and demand from countries like China and India increase. I don't know if we ever had the power to enrich or impoverish Middle Eastern countries, but if we did, we no longer do. Thirty years ago you could say that a large amount of the money that we put into our gas tank was coming back at us in a negative way. I don't think that you can say that anymore. That massive level of interdependence between the US and the Middle East just isn't there anymore.

[iam416]

This. Factor in the trillions we’ve spent on ME policy and interventions, to say nothing of the untold number of lives lost and ruined because of it, and compare that cost to solar subsidies.

Taking your assumptions to be true, that reads to me as -- "well, we were fucking idiots about oil, so we can be fucking idiots about solar." Or more politely, justifying future costs w/ past costs. That doesn't strike me as particularly smart decision-making. I mean, it's fair to point out unintended costs. But to use past unintended costs to justify future spending seems daft or, more pointedly, Wizardian.

[Wild Hoss]

The argument about funding the Middle East is a strong one, but it is taking on decreasing relevance as more American and Canadian sources are tapped and demand from countries like China and India increase. I don't know if we ever had the power to enrich or impoverish Middle Eastern countries, but if we did, we no longer do. Thirty years ago you could say that a large amount of the money that we put into our gas tank was coming back at us in a negative way. I don't think that you can say that anymore. That massive level of interdependence between the US and the Middle East just isn't there anymore.

Agree that the paradigm is changing, but the past is what it is...we have dumped unfathomable amounts of treasure into the pursuit of "cheap" oil. To bemoan the spending of a fraction of that cost to pursue native renewables is, IMO, ridiculous.

I didn't mean to come off as quite so harsh, so apologies. I (Obviously) hold strong opinions about the ME policies this country has pursued over my lifetime.

[Wild Hoss]

Taking your assumptions to be true, that reads to me as -- "well, we were fucking idiots about oil, so we can be fucking idiots about solar." Or more politely, justifying future costs w/ past costs. That doesn't strike me as particularly smart decision-making. I mean, it's fair to point out unintended costs. But to use past unintended costs to justify future spending seems daft or, more pointedly, Wizardian.

Well, I cannot control how you read anything. Needless to say, we disagree....huzzah for opinions I guess.