Fantasy Demolished - U.S. Climate Goals Threatened by "Green" Power demands

[JBG]

Gee, what a surprise. This Fourth Grade fantasy of free and clean energy from the wind and sun is ending as surely as Puff's dreams in Puff the Magic Dragon. Or, "where have all the flowers gone. An article, in all places, the New York Times, A New Surge in Power Use Is Threatening U.S. Climate Goals (link) describes this process. Excerpt:

Over the past year, electric utilities have nearly doubled their forecasts of how much additional power they’ll need by 2028 as they confront an unexpected explosion in the number of data centers, an abrupt resurgence in manufacturing driven by new federal laws, and millions of electric vehicles being plugged in.
Many power companies were already struggling to keep the lights on, especially during extreme weather, and say the strain on grids will only increase.*************
“The numbers we’re seeing are pretty crazy,” said Daniel Brooks, vice president of integrated grid and energy systems at the Electric Power Research Institute, a nonprofit organization.
In an ironic twist, the swelling appetite for more electricity, driven not only by electric cars but also by battery and solar factories and other aspects of the clean-energy transition, could also jeopardize the country’s plans to fight climate change. ***************
Burning more gas and coal runs counter to President Biden’s pledge to halve the nation’s planet-warming greenhouse gases and to generate all of America’s electricity from pollution-free sources such as wind, solar and nuclear by 2035.
“I can’t recall the last time I was so alarmed about the country’s energy trajectory,” said Tyler H. Norris, a former solar developer and expert in power systems who is now pursuing a doctorate at Duke University. If a wave of new gas-fired plants gets approved by state regulators, he said, “it is game over for the Biden administration’s 2035 decarbonization goal.”
Some utilities say they need additional fossil fuel capacity because cleaner alternatives like wind or solar power aren’t growing fast enough and can be bogged down by delayed permits and snarled supply chains.

See also free article, "The Planet Needs Solar Power. Can We Build It Without Harming Nature? (link in headline).
One can only suspect that the goal or result of this "green" frenzy will be to materially reduce living standards. Why don't they just be straightforward about this?

 

[mrjurrs]

Gee, what a surprise. This Fourth Grade fantasy of free and clean energy from the wind and sun is ending as surely as Puff's dreams in Puff the Magic Dragon. Or, "where have all the flowers gone. An article, in all places, the New York Times, A New Surge in Power Use Is Threatening U.S. Climate Goals (link) describes this process. Excerpt:


See also free article, "The Planet Needs Solar Power. Can We Build It Without Harming Nature? (link in headline).
One can only suspect that the goal or result of this "green" frenzy will be to materially reduce living standards. Why don't they just be straightforward about this?

Likely because the green frenzy will NOT materially reduce living standards. While some of the haves will have to give a little (maybe keep your thermostat at 78 degrees), the have nots (by far the majority) will see improvements in the quality of their lives.

Muscle up buttercup, your first world problem is showing.

 

[Phys251]

Gee, what a surprise. This Fourth Grade fantasy of free and clean energy from the wind and sun is ending as surely as Puff's dreams in Puff the Magic Dragon. Or, "where have all the flowers gone. An article, in all places, the New York Times, A New Surge in Power Use Is Threatening U.S. Climate Goals (link) describes this process. Excerpt:


See also free article, "The Planet Needs Solar Power. Can We Build It Without Harming Nature? (link in headline).
One can only suspect that the goal or result of this "green" frenzy will be to materially reduce living standards. Why don't they just be straightforward about this?

Coal coal coal! So green and pretty!

 

[JBG]

Likely because the green frenzy will NOT materially reduce living standards. While some of the haves will have to give a little (maybe keep your thermostat at 78 degrees), the have nots (by far the majority) will see improvements in the quality of their lives.

Muscle up buttercup, your first world problem is showing.

Are the so-called "haves" going to be told what to do? By who?

 

[mrjurrs]

Are the so-called "haves" going to be told what to do? By who?

You think they'd do it themselves? The majority will likely be influenced by societal pressures including taxes and laws.

 

[samiam5211]

Some people's devotion to fossil fuels is almost religious.

 

[JBG]

You think they'd do it themselves? The majority will likely be influenced by societal pressures including taxes and laws.

Some people's devotion to fossil fuels is almost religious.

Some people's devotion to untested and probably unworkable technology is almost religious.

 

[ralfy]

Gee, what a surprise. This Fourth Grade fantasy of free and clean energy from the wind and sun is ending as surely as Puff's dreams in Puff the Magic Dragon. Or, "where have all the flowers gone. An article, in all places, the New York Times, A New Surge in Power Use Is Threatening U.S. Climate Goals (link) describes this process. Excerpt:


See also free article, "The Planet Needs Solar Power. Can We Build It Without Harming Nature? (link in headline).
One can only suspect that the goal or result of this "green" frenzy will be to materially reduce living standards. Why don't they just be straightforward about this?

If biocapacity is true, as seen in diminishing returns, then nature will force a reduction in living standards.

 

[EdwinWillers]

I've no problem with wind and solar. I think it's a good thing we're developing those technologies. At the same time, they're nowhere near the be-all, end-all solution to our energy needs, and won't be for a very, very long time - if ever. Supplementally, fine - but let's be realistic too.

The US has made major advances in cleaning up our fossil fuel energies, probably more so than any other country in the world. And we still have vast resources available to us, for many decades to come. They won't last forever of course, so we need to be working on alternatives, but certainly not with the hysteria and religious fervor of some radicals.

It is important to note too that energy can be used as a threat our national security, particularly if we have to depend on others for our energy. Energy dependence is a key national security issue.

Personally, I'd like to see more development towards fusion energy, and in the interim, more nuclear energy because that can be done properly, and safely if we've a mind to do so. The US Navy has been successfully operating scores of nuclear reactors consistently, and safely for over 60 years now, so it can be done.

But the "green hysteria" as driven by some of its devoted green hysterics isn't the calm, rational approach to solving our energy problems either.

 

[PoS]

Some people's devotion to fossil fuels is almost religious.

Tell that to these neo luddites.

Here Is Every Artwork Attacked by Climate Activists This Year, From the 'Mona Lisa' to 'Girl With a Pearl Earring' | Artnet News

More and more environmental activists are targeting art history's greatest treasures with glue and food to battle about climate change.

news.artnet.com

 

[longview]

I see the future fairly clear. Within the scope of existing technology there is only one possible path likely, short of everything just falling apart.
Wind and Solar are, and always will be non dispatchable energy supplies, they provide power, but not when and where it might be needed.
Our demand is for dispatchable energy, ether when the AC turns on, or the car is filled up with gasoline.
Our demands do not wait for the Sun to be shinning or the wind to be blowing.
The nature of the problem is also part of the solution.
A system designed for peak load, will have massive seasonal surpluses.
Without a demand, 100% of the surplus energy will be lost.
Also the value of that energy without a demand drops to below zero.
Negative Power Prices? Blame the US Grid for Stranding Renewable Energy
Imagine if the refineries were set up to be dump loads, to store all the surplus as hydrocarbon fuels?
Power-to-liquid
Yes 20 to 40% of the energy is lost to the storage process, but it is energy that would be lost at 100% and could drive the wholesale prices negative.
We also have to consider that a gallon of gasoline contains 4 lbs of carbon, and the only ready source for that
is some industrial source of CO2, or directly from the atmosphere. In ether case the resulting fuels do not change the global CO2
level when burned, because the CO2 was harvested as it was created.
While a bit further in the future because of the economic curve, imagine that surplus also creates natural gas for the gas grid.
that gas could be stored for a thousand years, but it only need to last until the next peak demand season.
When the grid demand increases, massive amounts of carbon neutral gas is available for high efficiency combined cycle
gas power plants.

Lastly none of this requires much from the governments of the world, as it is mostly market driven.
What the governments do need to do, is to tie the purchase price of Wind and Solar input electricity to the wholesale price,
but through tax credits still encourage people to build as large a system as possible.

 

[samiam5211]

Tell that to these neo luddites.

Here Is Every Artwork Attacked by Climate Activists This Year, From the 'Mona Lisa' to 'Girl With a Pearl Earring' | Artnet News

More and more environmental activists are targeting art history's greatest treasures with glue and food to battle about climate change.

news.artnet.com

Yes, there are crazy people on both sides of every issue.

The people who love oil are no better than the idiots splashing paint on the glass protecting art.

 

[mrjurrs]

Some people's devotion to untested and probably unworkable technology is almost religious.

That's what people said about, cars, planes, computers, cell phones...etc. etc.

 

[JBG]

That's what people said about, cars, planes, computers, cell phones...etc. etc.

Why do we need a government edict if that is the case? Did we need a government edict or control to force us off whale oil for lighting? Where to replace horses with automobiles? Would you prefer horse manure on the streets to greenhouse gases?

 

[JBG]

Yes, there are crazy people on both sides of every issue.

The people who love oil are no better than the idiots splashing paint on the glass protecting art.

Huh? I don't love oil; I love things that work.

 

[mrjurrs]

Why do we need a government edict if that is the case? Did we need a government edict or control to force us off whale oil for lighting? Where to replace horses with automobiles? Would you prefer horse manure on the streets to greenhouse gases?

I'm unclear on your point?

We likely would not need a government edict if we removed the excess government subsidies that a mature energy market receives and applied them to green energy (developing market).

 

[longview]

I'm unclear on your point?

We likely would not need a government edict if we removed the excess government subsidies that a mature energy market receives and applied them to green energy (developing market).

Except that the energy fossil fuel companies get business related tax deductions not actual subsidies.
Here is what a subsidy looks like.
Avangrid asks to renegotiate contract prices for Mass. offshore wind project
A Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) at a fixed increasing price.

The PPAs are with the Massachusetts distribution utilities of Eversource Energy, National Grid PLC and Unitil Corp. They set an energy price of $47.68/MWh for the first year, which would escalate to $76.22/MWh in the project's 20th year, according to state filings. And they set renewable energy credit prices at $11.92/REC for the first year, escalating to $19.06/REC in the 20th year.

Imagine if Exxon was guaranteed a future price for every barrel of oil extracted, with a built in price increase.
What they call a subsidy for the oil companies is that they get to deduct the cost of drilling wells and other operating costs
from their gross profits.

 

[mrjurrs]

Except that the energy fossil fuel companies get business related tax deductions not actual subsidies.
Here is what a subsidy looks like.
Avangrid asks to renegotiate contract prices for Mass. offshore wind project
A Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) at a fixed increasing price.

Imagine if Exxon was guaranteed a future price for every barrel of oil extracted, with a built in price increase.
What they call a subsidy for the oil companies is that they get to deduct the cost of drilling wells and other operating costs
from their gross profits.

A business related tax deduction available only to one sector is a subsidy.

"Globally, fossil fuel subsidies were $7 trillion or 7.1 percent of GDP in 2022, reflecting a $2 trillion increase since 2020 due to government support from surging energy prices."

Fossil Fuel Subsidies

Subsidies are intended to protect consumers by keeping prices low, but they come at a high cost. Subsidies have sizable fiscal costs (leading to higher taxes/borrowing or lower spending), promote inefficient allocation of an economy’s resources (hindering growth), encourage pollution...

www.imf.org

 

[longview]

A business related tax deduction available only to one sector is a subsidy.

"Globally, fossil fuel subsidies were $7 trillion or 7.1 percent of GDP in 2022, reflecting a $2 trillion increase since 2020 due to government support from surging energy prices."

Fossil Fuel Subsidies

Subsidies are intended to protect consumers by keeping prices low, but they come at a high cost. Subsidies have sizable fiscal costs (leading to higher taxes/borrowing or lower spending), promote inefficient allocation of an economy’s resources (hindering growth), encourage pollution...

www.imf.org

That is kind of how business related deductions work, different type of businesses have different type of business expenses.
Walmart will have different business expenses than say an Airline, but both are related to the cost of doing business.

 

[mrjurrs]

That is kind of how business related deductions work, different type of businesses have different type of business expenses.
Walmart will have different business expenses than say an Airline, but both are related to the cost of doing business.

And that is where the subsidy comes in, providing tax breaks to a mature industry is a subsidy. That you claim that energy company business deductions are just like other business deductions is quite simply, untrue.

How can you compare an extraction subsidy to an inventory deduction?

 

[JBG]

Except that the energy fossil fuel companies get business related tax deductions not actual subsidies.
Here is what a subsidy looks like.
Avangrid asks to renegotiate contract prices for Mass. offshore wind project
A Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) at a fixed increasing price.

Imagine if Exxon was guaranteed a future price for every barrel of oil extracted, with a built in price increase.
What they call a subsidy for the oil companies is that they get to deduct the cost of drilling wells and other operating costs
from their gross profits.

Better yet, Solyndra: A Case Study in Green Energy, Cronyism, and the failure of Central Planning.

 

[longview]

And that is where the subsidy comes in, providing tax breaks to a mature industry is a subsidy. That you claim that energy company business deductions are just like other business deductions is quite simply, untrue.

How can you compare an extraction subsidy to an inventory deduction?

How so? business expenses are as diverse as businesses, they just have to be an expense needed for continued business operations.
For an oil company that includes the cost to explore for oil, drill for oil, transport oil, and refine oil.
Just like an apartment complex can deduct their maintenance costs, and advertising costs.

 

[Buzz]

And that is where the subsidy comes in, providing tax breaks to a mature industry is a subsidy. That you claim that energy company business deductions are just like other business deductions is quite simply, untrue.

How can you compare an extraction subsidy to an inventory deduction?

Good luck getting @longview to admit that oil companies get subsidies that no other businesses get. He has been shown the facts numerous times but believes what he wants.

 

[longview]

Good luck getting @longview to admit that oil companies get subsidies that no other businesses get. He has been shown the facts numerous times but believes what he wants.

They do get tax deductions that only oil companies would get, just like a fabric mill would get tax deductions only fabric mills would get.
A tax deduction is not a subsidy! Oil companies are not sent money for keeping the price of fuels low.

 

[Buzz]

They do get tax deductions that only oil companies would get, just like a fabric mill would get tax deductions only fabric mills would get.
A tax deduction is not a subsidy! Oil companies are not sent money for keeping the price of fuels low.

Oh cut the crap, long. How many people have to point out your BS before you quit pushing it?