[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Hawkcreek', ' ') Before we start throwing figures around to prove our point, we need to need to decide exactly what percentage of our energy is wasted today. That percentage does not to be provided for by renewable energy within the time limits you are speaking of.

[ukrneftegas]

But has anyone thought what amount of the investment do we all need to develop sustainale energy industry ??????

[MonteQuest]

I predict that the growth of renewable energy, other than local and backyard endeavors, will not even be worth mentioning for quite some time. Perhaps ever.

Pretty doomer, even from me, right?

Oil dropped almost $4 today. Verasun, the largest ethanol producer already went bankrupt in November, citing a disastrously volatile corn market and tightening credit. The six biggest public ethanol producers have lost almost $9 billion in market value in the last three years.

More at the Oil Drum

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4805

[ROCKMAN]

I agree Monte. It seems the only way we could ever make a run at alternatives would be by gov't mandate in spite of poor initial economic value and staggering costs. And I'll never expect that sort of action from today's political breed. Not sure if that level of strength ever existed in our system but I see no hint of it today.

[yesplease]

The largest economy in the U.S. is aiming for 33% of all electricity production from renewable sources in a little over a decade, so it isn't as if everyone's asleep, but renewables need subsidies or accurate levies on the externalities of fossil fuels to compete. As long as we continue to externalize hundreds of billions, possibly trillions of dollars worth of FF costs per year, renewables will appear to be more expensive.

[shortonsense]

dup

[shortonsense]

dup

[yesplease]

It looks like the EU is going ahead w/ plans for renewables as well.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]After eleven months of legislative work, the European Parliament gave its backing to the EU's climate change package which aims to ensure that the EU will achieve its climate targets by 2020: a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, a 20% improvement in energy efficiency, and a 20% share for renewables in the EU energy mix.

[ROCKMAN]

yes,

Not that I disagree with the necessity of the goal but I've heard one politician or supporter of alts express "goals" for decades and so far it hasn't meant crap. The oldest I recall is Nixon calling for energy independence in 20 some years. And that was almost 40 yeares ago. For my entire career in the oil patch I suffered one fool manager after another who thought establishing a goal was the same as striving to reach that goal. It ain't. When the gov't stops talking about goals and begins a serious effort to reach those goals then we'll be on the way to a solution.

Let's pick the discussion back up when the gov't actually does something significant to change the current status, why don't we.

[vtsnowedin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', '
')Let's pick the discussion back up when the gov't actually does something significant to change the current status, why don't we.

[thuja]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'I') agree Monte. It seems the only way we could ever make a run at alternatives would be by gov't mandate in spite of poor initial economic value and staggering costs. And I'll never expect that sort of action from today's political breed. Not sure if that level of strength ever existed in our system but I see no hint of it today.

[ROCKMAN]

I get your point thuja. I didn't say the gov't hasn't done anything. I was saying, IMHO, that the gov't has yet to achieve anything significant. Of course, we each get to define "significant". Mandates can be useful in the efforts but they are not solutions...they are goals. And we've all seen many mandates receive exemptions when they can't be met for one reason or the other. By significant I mean actions they will have a major impact on the US energy scene in the next 10 years. I've yet to see even one doable proposal that can reach that goal. Let's say utilizing alts to supply 20% of all US electrical consumption in 10 years qualifies as a "significant" impact. I've yet to see any proposals (let alone actual actions) where we could expect more then a few %.

I agree: there are a number of major steps that could be taken. But those steps haven't been started yet. I’ve worked in the oil patch for over 30 years so I also pay attention when the politicians propose changes to our energy consumption practices. And after all that time I’ve yet to see any serious effort to make such change happen. Lots of talk…no action. With an 8 yo daughter I would very much like to see those changes begin tomorrow for her sake.

[yesplease]

ROCK, in the case of CA, the government isn't doing anything directly, just mandating that state electricity co's have some percentage of their production as renewable energy by a certain date or they get hit by fines, so we aren't talking about a state claiming to do something, but the state making local utilities do something or else serve as a potential source of revenue. I'm not sure what the EU's setup is like, but if they properly revised the ETS it shouldn't be too bad.

The biggest reason why I think renewables can come on strong w/ state support is that they actually are viable given cost declines. Here's some thin film solar for ~$3.45/watt, that supposedly perform better than typical solar panels. Even w/o a state rebate we're looking at ~5-10 year payback times during peak rates from panels that have 25 year warranties. That's a sure fire bet for utilities, probably less than 10c/kWh for peak power production, which is usually around 20+c/kWh IIRC. Wind power continues to scale up as well as come down in price, and if we saw some sort of levy associated w/ Carbon that would blow FFs out of the water IMO.

In terms of what people have done, the CA solar rebate system has result in power from home and business solar panels and the federal government recently plunked down that 30% tax credit w/ no limit! Expansion so far has been slow but sure, however given where costs look to be going w/ think film solar for instance, I expect that renewables will continue to pick up the pace.

[ROCKMAN]

Good points yes. But that's the frustration you see in my words. There are many smaller efforts that could achieved even now in the worsening economy. But they aren't happening. With the huge budget deficit in CA it will be interesting to see if the state backs off those mandates. It seems as though CA will have to raise more revenue form the citizens. It's difficult to expect they'll force the utilities to bump those costs though. And that's my real point I suppose: real change would be costly and unpopular in a healthy environment. I see a huge social crippling coming in the form of much higher unemployment. To be honest, I'll be impressed if we don't make a big slide backwards as the gov't tries to hold things together poor and soon to be poor. We had a period of good growth and lost the opportunity to shift some of that gain towards our energy programs. Change, no matter how viable and needed, will cost. And we have little extra to go around right now. And probably much less in the near term.

I suppose it’s the holidays and thoughts of the future for today’s children (including my 8 yo) that aggravates the hell out of me. The last time I saw a politician who seemed committed to doing something real was Jimmy Carter. And TPTB just laughed at him then.

[yesplease]

I doubt they would back off the mandates. If anything they would enforce them since lack of compliance is more revenue for the state government, and if the companies do comply, we're looking at fewer costs for the state government. Change in this case is only costly and unpopular if you look at the initial costs, for instance assuming that the solar panels would get thrown out after less than five years, and ignoring the externalized costs of fossil fuels. I suppose that's analogous to saying that a change in borrowing habits would be costly, since we couldn't continue to bury ourselves in debt to buy the latest and greatest, but sometimes we've gotta hunker down and do what's best for our long term well being, financial and otherwise, instead of paying for something twice over or more through interest (eg the average fixed rate 30y loan). We'll see whether we continue to make the same mistakes or at least try to have an ounce of responsibility.

[thuja]

Nice to hae a reasonable conversation with you over this Rockman- instead of explosive denunciations and over the top hyperbole.

And yes- I agree with you that an economic implosion could lead to a vast curtailment of alternative energy projects. That would truly be sad...We shall see how long the Chinese continue to let us borrow money from them to invest in alternatives...some day they may simply say "no mas"- or whatever it is they say in China...

[shortonsense]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', ' ')The last time I saw a politician who seemed committed to doing something real was Jimmy Carter. And TPTB just laughed at him then.

[vtsnowedin]

This maze of mandates, incentives and tax credits is part of the problem. Every congress changes the rules so there is no way to predict the tax burden positive or negative over the life of the project. I saw large, for that time, wind mills put up in New Hampshire in the eightys on a tight schedual to collect some tax incentive then a few years later the rules changed and they took them back down. I think any renewable project should be free of all taxes for the life of the equipment and once put in place the rules for that plant could not be changed. That should be enough advantage to get the projects built if they are indeed practical and you can raise taxes on FF plants to increase the advantage they(edit. the renewables) have if needed.

[ROCKMAN]

For sure short. I didn't say the ole peanut farmer had everything right. But he did acknowledge that BAU was a bad plan. Did I notice the NG bubble and the effect of the WPT? Hell....I was getting up at 1 am to deliver produce to restaurants so I could pay bills during that part of the 80's. That's been THE problem with the gvo't approach to energy: knee jerk reaction to to one situation or another. At least Jimbo seemed to make a serious argument about changing BAU. Unfortunately he was such a virgin when it came to politics he achieved nothing.

[shortonsense]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'F')or sure short. I didn't say the ole peanut farmer had everything right. But he did acknowledge that BAU was a bad plan.