# Progress



## begreen (Aug 5, 2014)

It looks like the number of workers in the solar industry has surpassed those working in the coal industry. Based on local activity this growth continues unabated. The company that installed our system had 4 full time worker when they installed it a bit over 2 years ago. They now have 35 employees and are booked solid. 

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-has-more-solar-workers-than-coal-miners-2014-7


----------



## stoveguy2esw (Aug 5, 2014)

now if the factories making these panels were located in WV and KY so the people who are living there could have the jobs created to replace the jobs lost by the conversion it would be perfect


----------



## begreen (Aug 5, 2014)

WA state has two panel factories. The state incentives are heavily biased toward using WA state made products. SolarWorld panels are made in Hillsboro, OR. I think they are the largest US manufacturer.


----------



## semipro (Aug 5, 2014)

stoveguy2esw said:


> now if the factories making these panels were located in WV and KY so the people who are living there could have the jobs created to replace the jobs lost by the conversion it would be perfect


Agreed.  However, this requires that these states stop fighting progress, embrace and even encourage change. 
The same state subsidies that have historically supported fossil fuels could be incentives for solar panel production.


----------



## stoveguy2esw (Aug 5, 2014)

easy to say, harder to do. especially when you are looking at a situation where you are being put out of a job with at best the possibility of a new job sometime in the future.

youre asking folks to take quite the leap of faith considering the generations of people and communities who have relied on this industry to basically just walk away from it and hope that somthing else will be there to take over (especially when literally nothing has been said about helping the coal communities transition from coal to "progress".)


----------



## semipro (Aug 5, 2014)

I think of it something like working at Blockbuster videos.  
At some point you just need to face up to the eventuality that is Redbox and NetFlix.


----------



## Ashful (Aug 5, 2014)

semipro said:


> However, this requires that these states stop fighting progress, embrace and even encourage change.


I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the citizens of WV (well, maybe the "hill people"...).  What you perceive as fighting progress, they perceive as trying to feed their families.  If those coal jobs go away, and there's no new employer in town, that's a tough situation for a lot of folks.

We saw the same thing locally, with the steel plants dwindling, then closing.  Eventually, tech companies came in and revitalized the area, but not before the better part of a generation was ruined.


----------



## stoveguy2esw (Aug 5, 2014)

Joful said:


> I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the citizens of WV (well, maybe the "hill people"...).  What you perceive as fighting progress, they perceive as trying to feed their families.  If those coal jobs go away, and there's no new employer in town, that's a tough situation for a lot of folks.
> 
> We saw the same thing locally, with the steel plants dwindling, then closing.  Eventually, tech companies came in and revitalized the area, but not before the better part of a generation was ruined.


 


you explained it better than i did, but thats the point i was trying to make


----------



## begreen (Aug 5, 2014)

Yes, it takes leadership with the vision to anticipate change. Instead a lot of "leaders" today are actually "followers" of the one that contributes the most to their campaign funds. Nevermind that the same contributor may be off-shoring their taxes and company the next year. 

It is inevitable that clean energy is getting harder and more expensive to get. And populations continue to grow. This will change the equation for most of the planet eventually, like it or not. If we would stop wasting time and money on wars we could be a long way down the road toward new job creation and alternative technologies.


----------



## Where2 (Aug 5, 2014)

begreen said:


> It is inevitable that clean energy is getting harder and more expensive to get. And populations continue to grow. This will change the equation for most of the planet eventually, like it or not.



There certainly seems to be a price floor to clean energy. The floor on PV panels seems to be around $0.78/W. It will be interesting to see how long panels rest in this range before prices are driven upward by internal inflation and deflation of currency value.


----------



## Ashful (Aug 5, 2014)

begreen said:


> If we would stop wasting time and money on wars we could be a long way down the road toward new job creation and alternative technologies.


Don't neglect the reality that the vast majority of our technology has come out of spending on war technology.  WW2 gave us nuclear technology, and nuclear energy.  The cold war gave us the space program, and hence more rapid development in computing and materials science (actually, the creation of the entire field of materials science) than any other sector of our economy.  War = incentive for very rapid technology growth.


----------



## begreen (Aug 5, 2014)

All of those technologies could develop without war. The cold war is not a war. I am at a loss to explain what exactly have we gained from the Korean, Vietnam, Iraq I&II and Afghan wars.


----------



## Ashful (Aug 5, 2014)

begreen said:


> The cold war is not a war. I am at a loss to explain what exactly have we gained from the Korean, Vietnam, Iraq I&II and Afghan wars.


Definitely with you there, begreen... but remember:  Korea was not a war.  It was a "Police Action."  

Iraq 1 did actually have a somewhat significant impact on technology, giving us the first major opportunity to test out our latest modern warfare systems (smart bombs, early theater warfare, comm systems, etc.), and also incentivising the next decade's development of phased-array radar systems, millimeter wave satellite comm, etc.  The internet and cellular telecom have benefited enormously from this technology.


----------



## begreen (Aug 5, 2014)

I should also note that computers, radio and television, the internet, enormous medical advances etc. all happened outside of war. Yes war may push technological development, but that doesn't speak highly of mankind. We can and should do better.


----------



## Ashful (Aug 5, 2014)

begreen said:


> I should also note that computers, radio and television, the internet, enormous medical advances etc. all happened outside of war. Yes war may push technological development, but that doesn't speak highly of mankind. We can and should do better.


Can't argue with that.  Was just stating the facts, not any commentary on the ethics.  I agree we should do better, but accept that we probably won't.


----------



## BrotherBart (Aug 5, 2014)

As always, folks have to go to where the work is. In the booms.

http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...ta-people-oil-workers-photography-in-pictures


----------



## BrotherBart (Aug 5, 2014)

begreen said:


> All of those technologies could develop without war. The cold war is not a war. I am at a loss to explain what exactly have we gained from the Korean, Vietnam, Iraq I&II and Afghan wars.



Yeah that old thing about technology we gained from wars wore out a long time ago. Around 1957.


----------



## begreen (Aug 5, 2014)

BrotherBart said:


> As always, folks have to go to where the work is. In the booms.
> http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...ta-people-oil-workers-photography-in-pictures



That's a powerful article and grim reminder. "Dropping dead is my retirement.” and freeze-dried salami, don't make for much of a life.

As a comparison, we recently gave a young hitchhiker a ride that works for a local solar installer. He was totally psyched, loved his job and work.


----------



## BrotherBart (Aug 5, 2014)

We have followed the work all over this country every since the Pilgrims got off of the boats.

Sometimes Texans get stuck in Virginia for 30 years from an 18 month temporary assignment. 

ETA: I was catching my usual Monday morning flight out of DFW airport in 1982 when it seemed that entire state of Michigan was moving to Texas for work. The lady that rang up my newspaper purchase said "We just moved here from Michigan and really love your state.". I said "If you paid your property and sales taxes it is your state too, darlin.".


----------



## Grisu (Aug 5, 2014)

Joful said:


> Don't neglect the reality that the vast majority of our technology has come out of spending on war technology.  WW2 gave us nuclear technology, and nuclear energy.  The cold war gave us the space program, and hence more rapid development in computing and materials science (actually, the creation of the entire field of materials science) than any other sector of our economy.  War = incentive for very rapid technology growth.





Joful said:


> Iraq 1 did actually have a somewhat significant impact on technology, giving us the first major opportunity to test out our latest modern warfare systems (smart bombs, early theater warfare, comm systems, etc.), and also *incentivising* the next decade's development of phased-array radar systems, millimeter wave satellite comm, etc.  The internet and cellular telecom have benefited enormously from this technology.



The "incentive" is a hundreds of billions defense budget. Spend that amount of government money during peace times on research and you will get similar progress. Maybe even a lot more stuff that actually helps people instead of killing them. Have the government budget the same amount and make comparable demands to energy, pharmaceutical, telecom etc. industry and we'll have a lot more progress in those areas.


----------



## begreen (Aug 5, 2014)

BrotherBart said:


> We have followed the work all over this country every since the Pilgrims got off of the boats.
> 
> Sometimes Texans get stuck in Virginia for 30 years from an 18 month temporary assignment.
> 
> ETA: I was catching my usual Monday morning flight out of DFW airport in 1982 when it seemed that entire state of Michigan was moving to Texas for work. The lady that rang up my newspaper purchase said "We just moved here from Michigan and really love your state.". I said "If you paid your property and sales taxes it is your state too, darlin.".


True true. But this thread is more about creating new work for others to follow.


----------



## BrotherBart (Aug 5, 2014)

Nothing is created out of whole cloth. Something goes down when something else comes up.

Well, the one exception was cell phones. And after years of creating new traffic even that one is starting to take down wireline traffic.


----------



## begreen (Aug 5, 2014)

Yes, productivity went down when Amazon and Facebook started rising.


----------



## Grisu (Aug 5, 2014)

You forgot hearth.com.


----------



## BrotherBart (Aug 5, 2014)

Grisu said:


> You forgot hearth.com.



That one killed my productivity for sure.


----------



## Grisu (Aug 5, 2014)

stoveguy2esw said:


> now if the factories making these panels were located in WV and KY so the people who are living there could have the jobs created to replace the jobs lost by the conversion it would be perfect



Coal went down due to the fracking boom and the huge drop in NG prices. Accordingly, coal is making a comeback with gas becoming more expensive. Renewables on the other hand are still a far cry from replacing fossil fuels for electricity generation. http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=11391


----------



## BrotherBart (Aug 5, 2014)

begreen said:


> Yes, productivity went down when Amazon and Facebook started rising.



They can't hold a candle to the porn sites for traffic.


----------



## BrotherBart (Aug 5, 2014)

Joful said:


> I dunno... I'm on Amazon.com every day.



I used to be. Until hey told me that a replacement battery charger would ship two months later. But the broken one had to be back to them in thirty days.

Never had that problem with a porn site.

Fact is money, not war, drives innovation. We would still have nuke power without blowing up Japan. Do ya think they started working on it just because a war started. I dun tink so Lucy. Did they get farther, faster because Uncle Sugar was picking up the tab. Sure.


----------



## begreen (Aug 5, 2014)

There was no money involved when man discovered fire or music. Galileo didn't exactly get rewarded for pursuing the truth. Innovation and discovery is intrinsic in the human soul. But yes, there is always another that is ready to make a buck off of it. 

OK, now come back with a wiseass rejoinder, I know I'm asking for it.


----------



## BrotherBart (Aug 6, 2014)

You ain't gonna believe what a wino in Cleveland is working on as we type.

Discovering fire just meant not getting blown up when the lightning hit the trees,. Music, well, God created James Brown.


----------



## begreen (Aug 6, 2014)

The problems of the world cannot possibly be solved by skeptics or cynics whose horizons are limited by the obvious realities. We need men who can dream of things that never were.
John F. Kennedy


----------



## woodgeek (Aug 6, 2014)

begreen said:


> It looks like the number of workers in the solar industry has surpassed those working in the coal industry. Based on local activity this growth continues unabated. The company that installed our system had 4 full time worker when they installed it a bit over 2 years ago. They now have 35 employees and are booked solid.
> 
> http://www.businessinsider.com/us-has-more-solar-workers-than-coal-miners-2014-7



Wind workers passed coal miners a few years ago.  Solar is rapidly catching up to wind in terms of scale, with a higher growth rate and ultimate potential.

The growth of solar electricity has been a very smooth *exponential* function for more than a decade, and its recently been doubling every 2 years or so (globally).  In contrast, agencies like EIA have been doing linear projections on the future growth of solar for more than a decade now, and revising them dramatically upward every year without comment.

A back of the envelope calculation: Since solar PV currently provides ~0.25% of worldwide *energy* (not just electricity), we would need only 8 doublings to get to 100%, this is only *16* years or ~2030. 

Of course, nothing is ever that simple, if it were, around 2100 the earth would be a ball of solar panels expanding into space at the speed of light. 

The question is, where does the exponential growth stop?

1) If growth is fueled by public subsidies, these can run out, or be capped (leading to linear growth).  Example: Italy has more PV than the US, but growth is currently flatlined.

I claim that we are hitting the point where PV growth does not rely on subsidies.  The European case pays folks $$ per year for years after installation, which creates an entrenched constituency that defends the subsidy, and makes the future budget look terrible and politically untenable.

I think the current growth of PV in the US and China are organic, and would continue w/o subsidies.

2) We can run out raw materials....fortunately silicon and aluminum are 27% and 7% of the earths crust, so no worries there.

3) We can run out of space.  Nope.  There is plenty of unused open space to install enough PV to run 100% of human needs.

4) We can run out of money.....world GDP is $71T/year.  The last year of our 'growth to 100% and then stop scenario': we would need to add ~50% of world energy production (15 TW) in the form of PV during the last year. Assuming 25% capacity factor for PV, comes in as 30 TW(rating) of PV panels around year 2030.  If we think installed PV prices settle down to $0.50/W by then, that would be $15T or 25% of world GDP.

Realistically, we would switch to linear growth for the last few years to avoid overbuilding factories and training too many workers (almost all of which would be obsolete when 100% was reached).  In this scenario ~5% of world GDP for 5 years could finish the job, say, around 2035.  Note that this 5% would be scored as 'growth' in the economy in the late 2020s, not a tax or cost.

5) Some folks claim we don't have enough energy to build out PV, reducing Al and Si from their oxide form is very energy intensive....Energy payback on solar PV is ~1 year at favorable sites.  So making the panels in those last five years (enough to yield 50% of world energy) would require 10% of world energy for the final 5 years.  Doesn't seem impossible at all (given that PV would already be providing >50% of world energy at that point).

So there you have it, solar PV can produce enough energy to power essentially 100% of the global economy, using a much smaller fraction of the earths surface than agriculture does currently, and can be built out via something called free enterprise using existing, familiar PV tech, by about 2035.

Of course, many holes can be poked in the above.  But the point is that if/when solar PV gets cheaper than fossil fuels (currently true in nearly all markets when external costs are factored, many markets even when they are not) then free enterprise will drive solar growth that leads lead to jobs and economic activity and growth.  Realizing this transition will require new utility business models, new grid infrastructure, new long-range grid transmission, heat pumps for home heat and DHW, cheap electric storage, electrified rail for cargo and EVs for residential use. But all the necessary tech exists and is currently under intensive development, mostly by industry leaders that see the future coming.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the record, 20-30 year energy use projections by the EIA and the oil majors assume a nearly linear growth model for solar.  Or an exponential growth followed by a flatline at a penetration level they simply make up.  Our current politicians are happily battling over setting CO2 thresholds to meet in 2030 or 2050 without reference to the emerging solar reality being created by private enterprise.  Mostly they will just need to get out of the way.


----------



## begreen (Aug 6, 2014)

Good plan but distribution and storage of solar energy is still a major roadblock to 100% adoption. Half the world is either in the dark and in winter all the time. Would fusion energy may have more promise with the same amount of development and finances?


----------



## Ashful (Aug 6, 2014)

Always impressed with your posts, woodgeek.  Very thoughtful, and very informed.


----------



## woodgeek (Aug 6, 2014)

begreen said:


> Good plan but distribution and storage of solar energy is still a major roadblock to 100% adoption. Half the world is either in the dark or in winter all the time. Would fusion energy may have more promise with the same amount of development and finances?



Given that energy positive fusion energy has not yet been demonstrated after 50 years of effort, I would say its too late, even if it is technically possible.

Solar PV is mostly done with 'development', its currently in an exponential rollout, and it looks to a lot of folks like printing money. All that we have to do now is write the relevant permits, laws and adapt existing tech to it.  Even if there was another suitable tech (like non-Silicon PV) that had the potential to generate all the needed energy at a competing price, PV is looking pretty hard to catch.

US Milestones/Timeline:

*Phase #1:* Extend current residential and utility-scale grid-tie until PV output hits ~100% of daytime demand.  Use existing business model, and set up curtailment agreements with industrial PV generators, to allow somewhat higher penetration.  No storage is required.
When: This happens when solar hits 20% electrical energy penetration.  In CA, energy penetration is currently running about 5%, it should hit this limit in two doublings, or about *4 years*.  Other US markets will follow, many other states have current penetration rates above 0.5%, they will all get there in three more doublings, or within *12 years* from now.

*Phase #2:* In this phase, grid storage gets deployed, consisting of utility owned equipment and equipment managed by industrial scale PV farms.  Residential use gets time of day rates, with cheaper rates during the day, and night rates capped at day rates + storage costs.  Once daytime rates + storage compete with fossil electricity (date??) PV penetration continues to expand toward 100% of electricity, which takes 2.5 more doublings or *5 more years*.  During this time folks may build affordable residential off-grid systems with grid backup, but economies of scale may allow grid power to be cheaper.  CA is experimenting with grid storage now, as it will need it in 4 years.

Storage systems have about 10 years to get affordable before Phase 1 is done in much of the US.  Mr. Musk expects Li-ion EV batteries to be $100/kWh capacity by then, or 5-10 cents per kWh per cycle.  He is also planning on building stationary power systems.  Different (cheaper) chemistries, or flow battery tech, presumably is possible, unconstrained by volume and weight.  If storage does get to pennies/kWh/cycle within 10 years, then there is no reason for PV's exponential growth to slow.  It will keep going to 100% electricity, getting there in many markets by the late 2020s.

*Phase #3:* Electrify much of the remaining fossil powered economy.  Current trends in the use of Heat Pumps for space heating and DHW will have advanced over the next 15 years to swell electircity demand (met by solar) at the expense of residential gas and propane consumption.  EVs and PHEVs (together, called 'plug ins') will likely cross 1% of US car sales later *this year*.  With improved 2nd generation versions of the Volt and Leaf due in the next couple years, as well as the low cost Tesla Model 3 and 16 other current models for sale, 'plug ins' could continue their current exponential growth (doubling every two years also), reaching about 50% of sales and 10% of the car fleet in 15 years.  After 50% of sales are crossed, 50% of the car fleet will be plug-ins five years later, i.e. by 2035.  US total gasoline consumption peaked more than 7 years ago, in 2007.  It is currently down about 5% since then.  With increases in mpg standards and EVs rolling into the fleet, the historical US gasoline peak may never be exceeded.


----------



## begreen (Aug 6, 2014)

Optimistic for sure. Our railroads and big trucks are probably not going to run on sun and batteries any time soon though.


----------



## Where2 (Aug 7, 2014)

Where's a super-conductor power grid when you need one? The wind is blowing, the sun is shining, or there is water flowing somewhere, most of the time.

Flipping through an antique Popular Science a few weeks ago after googling the term hydroelectric power, I came across a pre-world war II concept of harnessing the tides and using the excess energy to move sea water to a higher elevation so that it could fall through a hydroelectric generator during the stack tide events.


----------



## begreen (Aug 7, 2014)

We have strong tides here at our northern latitude but so far this has not been developed. We also are a prime candidate for geothermal power which is 24/7. Still hasn't happened here. We need to get past phase #0: a functional govt.


----------



## semipro (Aug 7, 2014)

begreen said:


> Optimistic for sure. Our railroads and big trucks are probably not going to run on sun and batteries any time soon though.


Well maybe not directly but we may harness the sun to produce algae- and other biomass-based biofuels  to fuel these vehicles.


----------



## woodgeek (Aug 7, 2014)

The point was that I do not see ANY major *technical* impediments to going to a nearly 100% PV+wind (Renewable Energy) powered economy.  All the needed technology is currently in mass production, and most of it is already demonstrated at low enough cost (with the exception of grid storage, which is getting close) to make the conversion negative cost to the economy as a whole.

to try to take a more sober view....

*Phase #1*

The near exponential rollout of RE to 20-30% electricity nationwide in the near future is basically a lock, with low cost SiPV panels and wind turbines being mature tech that companies can just buy today in any desired volume and generate ROI.  Utility business models will change during this period, a reasonable guess is that many will look like current California utility models.... profitable grid-tie deals in effect and time of use (TOU) rates becoming almost universal.  Overall kWh rates will likely stay the same or fall....on-shore wind penetration has been found to correlate with rate reductions, and cheap PV, aligned as it is with peak demand periods (due to AC), seem likely to do the same or better.

As peak PV output approaches 100% midday demand, TOU rates midday may start to drop, cutting into grid-tie profits for PV owners and grid operators (who earn their 'transmission fee' per kWh for free).  At this point predictions get more murky....

Low TOU rates midday would shift a lot of loads to midday, propping the rates up somewhat and allowing higher PV penetration.

Late PV adopters can opt to put panels facing E and W, to make $$ when others arrays are not at peak, but BG is correct, without grid storage, the PV industry sees a wall at 20-25% electricity penetration, and can't get beyond 50% or so even with E/W arrays and load shifting to midday and curtailment.

Since all this tech, and these business models already exist, at low cost, i don't see a problem with the exponential growth of PV continuing up to this 'stable point', where PV is scary cheap compared to today, but the grid-tie TOU rates you get selling the electricity are low enough to make it look like a marginal investment.  Simple math shows CA hitting this wall in a few years, much of the rest of the country in 10 or so years.  Places like NJ and MA that are PV early adopters due to subsidies....will get there a couple years ahead of their neighboring states.  States that try to ban RE development....could hold out a long time perhaps, but even they may end up buying cheap power midday from neighbors.

But absent cheap storage...after hitting the wall at 20-25% penetration, PV growth would slow and only asymptotically approach a 40-50% figure as folks retool their appliances for midday TOU, E/W PV arrays get filled in, etc.

*All the above is serious as a heart attack.*  Every utility operator in the US currently takes the above as a given, with the penny having dropped in the last couple years.  It is the accepted part of the coming PV revolution and it ends at 25-50% solar penetration.

*Phase #2*

This projected endpoint, in play in CA within 5 years, and the rest of the US within 15 creates a HUGE market opportunity to buy and store cheap PV power midday, and sell it back to the grid at nighttime rates (set by FF+wind+hydro prices in 2025).   This market does not currently exist anywhere on the planet, but in 10 years it will exist nearly everywhere.  If nighttime power stays cheap (go wind and frack gas), and/or PV daytime rates stay high (entrenched constituency, as in germany) or storage stays too expensive (tech development hurdle)  then Phase 2 (going to 100% RE eletricity with grid storage) does not happen.  Conversely, any sort of carbon tax or storage subsidy would likely propel it forward.

This is a glass half full/ half empty thing.  It depends on your guesses about the FF energy market, and AGW public policy sphere 10-15 years hence.  I am an optimist, in that I think public policy and high-ish FF prices will drive this forward, but *its still a WAG*.

*Phase #3*

This is really about the broad adoption of increasingly efficient electrical appliances (including vehicles) to replace much less efficient FF powered equipment.  Frankly, in a world with 15 cent/kWh elec and $100 oil, this transition has been moving forward since 2007.  Seven years after the oil price signal, there are 19 different models of plug in cars available for sale in the US, from all the major automakers and one flashy startup.  The growth of these cars sales is also exponential, currently near 1% market share and seems to have no reason to stop until significant penetration occurs, provided existing successful products can be incrementally improved.  The current $7500 fed rebate runs out with maybe a million plug-ins on the road (having cost $7.5B to taxpayers).  Will it be extended?  Will plug-ins get cheap enough to survive the loss of the rebate in the US?  Answer: the global market is as big as the US one.  Right now 40% (!) of new cars sold in Norway are plug-ins, due to generous subsidies and tax incentives.  Even if the US market sneezes, the global EV market will not catch a cold.

Simple projections show significant market penetration for sales in 5-10 years.  An 11 year median age car fleet will take another decade to roll over.  So EVs will take nibbles out of US petroleum usage in the 2020s and bites in the 2030s.  This EV revolution happens independently and in parallel with the PV revolution, and bears fruit on a slightly later timeframe, just when (under favorable grid storage conditions) there is a lot of extra RE ready to be soaked up.

Of course we will still have FF-fueled jets, maybe diesel powered heavy trucks, freight trains and farm equipment (or maybe not), but the above scenario bodes well for AGW issues despite those smaller end uses.  As well as benefits for US energy security, balance of trade, and oil scarcity concerns (10 or 20 years hence).

Note that neither the PV nor EV revolutions requires a political revolution.  IMHO I happen to think that we are gearing up for a major shift in US politics, driven by the millenials...gay marriage and pot legalization are just the (unthinkable 10 years ago) opening shots.  However that shakes out, I think the younger generation will ram home these virtuous cycles with favorable public policy, speeding these two revolutions forward.  Even if they don't, I think the PV and EV revolutions are baked in at this point, simply because there is money to be made.


----------



## begreen (Aug 7, 2014)

Wish you were my neighbor Woodgeek, I'd have you over frequently for some long chats. I like the vision and I agree there is a shift in politics coming about, but I doubt it is going to be smooth. Desperate men will do desperate things to hold onto power. With the current wealth inequality and total ownership of media, they are not going to let go easily. Then we need to factor in the disruption of society by rising waters, stronger storms, crop shortages and drought. What I suspect will happen will be more at the state and community level. Our federal system is gridlocked. Change is going to have to happen from the grassroots up. Hopefully these communities will network and become stronger.


----------



## Ashful (Aug 7, 2014)

begreen said:


> What I suspect will happen will be more at the state and community level. Our federal system is gridlocked. Change is going to have to happen from the grassroots up. Hopefully these communities will network and become stronger.


Geez... you're starting to sound like a true Republican, begreen!  

A distributed government with very minimal oversight at the federal level, is a founding principal of the Republican party.  Unfortunately, almost everyone running that party today seems to forget that fact, once they reach a position of power.


----------



## woodgeek (Aug 7, 2014)

begreen said:


> Wish you were my neighbor Woodgeek, I'd have you over frequently for some long chats. I like the vision and I agree there is a shift in politics coming about, but I doubt it is going to be smooth. Desperate men will do desperate things to hold onto power. With the current wealth inequality and total ownership of media, they are not going to let go easily. Then we need to factor in the disruption of society by rising waters, stronger storms, crop shortages and drought. What I suspect will happen will be more at the state and community level. Our federal system is gridlocked. Change is going to have to happen from the grassroots up. Hopefully these communities will network and become stronger.



Ditto.  If I thought immediate govt action was required to overcome the challenges the future has in store for us, I would not be as optimistic as I am.  

I have long asserted that the good deeds of the righteous are never enough to make the world work...there aren't enough of them...its the good deeds of the wicked and the greedy (myself included) that put us just over the top.

As for politics, I think both parties are in for some surprises re what the young folks are going to want.   I was getting tired of the same old 'politics of the 60s' for my entire life (I'm 46).  I'll just be relieved to get some new issues debated.

My kids now refer to the period of my youth simply as 'the 1900s'.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Aug 7, 2014)

if ever a reason to bring back the can here it is. a bunch of guys who agree with every thing said. . great points made from one side, easy to enjoy the company of ones neighbor you always agree with. I've enjoyed the subject discussion here but then comes the bs. a mod brings in all the other stuff he thinks go with it. in my opinion,  turns it political. not allowed here or so I've been told. enjoy your discussion, glad you all agree with each other


----------



## woodgeek (Aug 7, 2014)

Sorry Doug, I brought up politics, but did try to keep it to a minimum.


----------



## begreen (Aug 8, 2014)

No problem


----------



## jebatty (Aug 8, 2014)

I'm just one grid user with a grid-tie PV system that is making me an un-customer of utility power. My utility is fixed on "coal is forever." Kind of like the star struck potential partner who thinks diamonds are forever and the other half of the partnership already has moved on.


----------



## woodgeek (Aug 8, 2014)

Doug MacIVER said:


> if ever a reason to bring back the can here it is. a bunch of guys who agree with every thing said. . great points made from one side, easy to enjoy the company of ones neighbor you always agree with. I've enjoyed the subject discussion here...



What's your idea of 'progress' in the Green Room?


----------



## begreen (Aug 8, 2014)

Another sign of progress. America is starting to realize the impact and potential of biogas. There has been good progress this month in both recognizing the impact of landfill and livestock methane and in providing a roadmap with incentives for anaerobic digestion as a way to turn this quite serious greenhouse gas production into fuel. 

https://www.americanbiogascouncil.org/


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Aug 8, 2014)

as I said I enjoyed the read, points well made and  sensible. as I've also said in other threads, i'm not a big subsidy fan. if the shoe industry was propped up like solar and wind I'd still have customers. i have a great dislike for the cape wind subsidy which amounts to $.1825 kw to the rate payer.  that is before distribution charges. they also can raise this after one to two years. how'd you like that with your choice in home heat and cooling. let them survive on what the competition dictates and live on the tax breaks I get in my business. that is where politics arrive. your going to pay for it because(fill in the blank)

then bg adds the other, sea level(minimal),stronger storms( check ace and tornado #'s),crop shortages( checkout continual rise in production on any chart), drought(checkout connection to pdo, west coast assumption here). change from grass roots, alot the change on this topic is heavily gov't dictated.

great respect for those trying on their own to improve what they perceive as a threat, me I usually look at the economic gain in this household. electric car here used when  more affordable, led lights now that they are cheaper, same thought on solar. of course the road tax will be coming our way, can't be having you guys using the roads for free have a day and even a better weekend


----------



## begreen (Aug 8, 2014)

There is a quantum difference between an individual industry and the energy that fuels our economy and societies. Energy is already subsidized, oil, coal and gas get lots of bennies. It's just to the wrong partners at this juncture IMO. We are potentially coming up on massive societal changes. If so, we all will be making large personal sacrifices. Much larger than most people perceive at this juncture. Reducing our global carbon footprint is a matter of long term survival, not convenience. Woodgeeks point about youth changing the vote will hopefully happen. It's their future that is screwed by complacency. 

Now back to the topic, progress.


----------



## woodgeek (Aug 8, 2014)

Doug MacIVER said:


> as I said I enjoyed the read, points well made and  sensible. as I've also said in other threads, i'm not a big subsidy fan. if the shoe industry was propped up like solar and wind I'd still have customers. i have a great dislike for the cape wind subsidy which amounts to $.1825 kw to the rate payer.  that is before distribution charges. they also can raise this after one to two years. how'd you like that with your choice in home heat and cooling. let them survive on what the competition dictates and live on the tax breaks I get in my business. that is where politics arrive. your going to pay for it because(fill in the blank)



I suspect  we might agree on several things.....I vacation on the Cape every summer, and have been following the Cape Wind project for years. Frankly, for the last couple years I have been horrified, and convinced that the whole thing is a swindle/boondoggle that will set back renewable energy in MA and off-shore power in the US for a generation or so! 

I read an article in the Cape Cod Times in July that so enraged me that I was ranting about it for days.....it was clearly a press release from the Cape Wind Foundation, regurgitated by a lazy journalist....

It started out talking about how the people of Mass were long pioneers in the field of wind power, leading the rest of the beknighted citizens of the US into a RE future, and that they in their infinite wisdom have decided that they must have the Cape Wind Project, talked about how the (well above market) costs per kWh are really a bargain (by some twisted logic), that it will herald in a slew of similar projects up and down the East Coast, etc.  It then went on to talk about the MA RPS (Renewable Portfolio Standard, that mandates that some % MA electricity must be RE by some date) and said that it was a **problem**, because you see, it was written with an incorrect definition of 'Renewable Electricity' that included the possibility of cheap hydro power imported from Quebec.  Lawyers from Cape Wind were now working with state legislators to get a revised RPS passed that would exclude such (cheap!) RE from the standard, and instead have it be worded so that it would mandate buying Cape Wind power instead.  

**Flabbergasted**

If the above is your idea of wind power, I can see where you get your negative impression!  I looked up (onshore) wind power stats....and PA has ~1GW of wind installed, pretty typical for a state its size, which gets 2.2 cents/kWh in federal subsidy for 10 years, and no other subsidies.  On average, these turbines generate as much energy as a 350 MW power station running 24/7, and dump their power into the local grid to be sold at market rates.  I can buy it about a penny cheaper than my local conventional power.  If the subsidy went away, they would still operate and make money for their owners, and reduce the CO2 and other pollutants in my state's air, while creating a few jobs here.

I looked up MA, and found they they essentially have no wind power to speak of, pretty much at the bottom of the list, despite having a pretty kickin wind resource, plenty of open land out west, and being right nextdoor to CT with the most expensive power in the US.  Basically nada.  And then when I drive along I-95, there are a bunch of these little 'toy' turbines all along the highway, maybe 100' tall, versus the real ones that are like 300' tall and generate ~10x the power more cheaply (that can be found in other states).  Why are the toy turbines there in a developed area?  IMO, it greenwashing....how many folks in MA think their state is big into windpower b/c of driving past those doohickies every day?

Oy.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Aug 8, 2014)

woodgeek said:


> I suspect  we might agree on several things.....I vacation on the Cape every summer, and have been following the Cape Wind project for years. Frankly, for the last couple years I have been horrified, and convinced that the whole thing is a swindle/boondoggle that will set back renewable energy in MA and off-shore power in the US for a generation or so!
> 
> I read an article in the Cape Cod Times in July that so enraged me that I was ranting about it for days.....it was clearly a press release from the Cape Wind Foundation, regurgitated by a lazy journalist....
> 
> ...


ex-wife's brother in law has a 1.5 on his industrial park in plymouth. perfect, right. not so fast. questions whether he'll put up anymore, a royal pain to permit ect.  he has the perfect place an industrial park.no complaints from one, has room for 3-4
I think your right about greening, it looks good.
cape wind rots my garters and not because I can see it from the rocker in the avatar, because I can't .
as I said you'd not be buying wind in Mass.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Aug 8, 2014)

this is where I make my home, don't read it all you'll get sick https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2014/05/29/hanover-turbine-still-not-turning/ that is just water. no sewer in hanover.


----------



## woodgeek (Aug 8, 2014)

I grew up a little west of there, west side of Brockton.  I guess there's an Ikea near there now?


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Aug 8, 2014)

woodgeek said:


> I grew up a little west of there, west side of Brockton.  I guess there's an Ikea near there now?


raised in Brockton, lived on the south side. my factory is in the village and my nephew lives in the old cape  road neighborhood across from Thorney Lea. IKEA on the AVON/STOUGHTON line


woodgeek said:


> I grew up a little west of there, west side of Brockton.  I guess there's an Ikea near there now?[/


----------



## begreen (Aug 8, 2014)

Back to progress....

Anyone know more about the nanoflow battery? They certainly packaged it in a nice demo vehicle. The battery tech is scalable and looks good for home storage. 

from the press kit:
_"The current energy density of 600 Wh/l is already an impressive five to six times greater than lithium-ion batteries. In addition, flow cells can go through 10,000 charging cycles with no noticeable memory effect and suffer almost no self-discharging.

Another advantage comes through the simple scalability of the nanoFLOWCELL® storage tanks. The first QUANT e-Sportlimousine prototype carries two 200-litre tanks on board. Its energy load is therefore 200 times 600 Wh/l: 120 kWh in total. The QUANT e-Sportlimousine uses its energy reserves frugally, consuming about 20 kWh/100 km. Just like conventional cars, an electric car’s range depends on its total storage capacity and its consumption. In the case of the QUANT e-Sportlimousine, the average is around 600 kilometres."_

http://www.gizmag.com/900-hp-supercar-flow-battery/31091/
http://www.nanoflowcell.com/en#home


----------



## woodgeek (Aug 9, 2014)

Oftentimes trying to predict the future is bewildering and hopeless, and sometimes just a little later, it all becomes clear.

The economic benefits of being the *first* technology in a sector often trump other factors when determining what technology goes mainstream...VHS versus BetaMax.  There are many reasons why this is so, but basically with tech there are '*winners*' that get developed enough to get cheap and which fill a niche to get adopted.

In the renewable energy sector, big hydro got there first, the technical kinks got worked out over a couple decades, it got 'cheap' and then it got 'built out' (to between 50-100% of the US available resource) before I was born. I have read that govt assistance was provided.  It meets ~6% of US electrical needs, but it is hard to see it ever going much bigger than 10%, even if we developed every site (and accepted the bad impacts of that).  But still, its a winner.

'Industrial wind' (onshore) emerged from the 70s energy crisis, got its kinks worked out over a decade or so, got cheap, and it is now currently being built out.  It now provides ~4% of US electricity, and is still growing in double digit percentages per year.  The best sites (high resource, undeveloped land, near good markets) are running out, but there is still room to grow and make money.  As for the resource, many regions can easily hit 100% wind power (peak output matches demand), and some might be able to hit 100% wind electricity energy (with cheap storage that doesn't exist currently).  Still, many regions are too developed, or have too poor of a wind resource to meet those goals. Despite a few badly managed ventures, its clearly a winner.

I've already been a broken record on PV.  In 2014 it is clear that it is a winner.  What is different is the size of the resource (which can easily go to >100% peak power or total electrical energy (with storage) in every region of the US), and the rate of growth, 35-40% per year, compounded, which is because of the scalability of the tech and its relatively easy permitting and installation (compared to other power tech like nukes, FF plants or wind). So, it will get BIG, and it will do it FASTER than most people would ever have expected.

Like smart phone adoption BIG and FAST.

PV is now where smartphones were in 2005.  Like smart phones, new tech will crowd other tech out (think dumb phones and PalmPilots),  will boost related tech (think iPhone case, charger and speaker manufacturers and game app developers) and lead to unexpected new sectors (think tablets, FaceBook?).   Some industries will need to retool their infrastructure and business models....e.g. we still have mostly the same cell phone companies as 2005, but they had to build out data networks, not just voice, and figure out how to charge for it.

Here's my off the cuff take for other tech.

Big Hydro: Plays well with PV, cheap and dispatchable....will be aok.
Big (onshore) Wind: Plays well with PV. Different output pattern (daily and seasonal schedule, regional) and cheap....will be aok.

All other renewable electricity tech currently being fielded at a medium scale:  existing sites will continue to operate, BUT growth will go to zero.
Concentrating Solar Power (CSP, e.g. Ivanpeh): Many recent projects cancelled, most of those switched the site to industrial PV.  Flatline.
Offshore Wind (e.g Cape Wind): None is US, costs of EU offshore systems have not fallen as hoped.  Flatline in EU, dead in US.
Geothermal Electricity: Currently Small, limited geography and not 'sustainable' for more than a few decades.  Flatline.

Other sustainable electricity under investiagation: whether or not they could be done cheaply after R&D, no one will be motivated to pay for the R&D after the PV revolution.  DEAD as DOORNAILS.
List includes: Tidal, Fusion, Thorium Nukes, probably Gen III and Gen IV PV tech, OTEC, small wind, small hydro.

Grid Storage:  Will be the next iPad, something 'unthinkable', until something else came first....excess really cheap daytime electrons.
Whatever storage tech emerges as the winner (I still like Li-Ion as the VHS solution of grid storage, but what do I know?) will lead to many other changes....

If/when cheap grid storage is realized, 'the iPad', then NG electricity becomes the PC, nukes become legacy Mainframes (none built in decades), and Coal is already long dead.

Interesting but impossible to predict....cheap grid storage and built up grids, paid for by PV, might expand opportunities to develop more onshore wind in the future, removing grid saturation limits, and allowing it to compete in some regions and seasons as Robin to PV's Batman.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

So,
Coal and Nukes are already dead.
All Renewable Energy other than onshore wind, big hydro and Si PV will soon be dead.
Grid Storage is the next iPad
Natural Gas electricity will be here until after grid storage....like the PC, it could be around a long time, but not necessarily a profit center or the center of things.
Most existing (major) Utilities will continue to exist...but your bill will be more complicated.


----------



## begreen (Aug 9, 2014)

We'll see if the nanoflowcell is part of the solution. Does this just refer to the US? China has announced that Bejing intends to ban coal power by 2020, but they still have almost 400 new coal plants under construction or on the drawing board. England, Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium and Germany have huge offshore wind farms. Some are steadily are growing.


----------



## woodgeek (Aug 9, 2014)

begreen said:


> We'll see if the nanoflowcell is part of the solution. Does this just refer to the US? China has announced that Bejing intends to ban coal power by 2020, but they still have almost 400 new coal plants under construction or on the drawing board. England, Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium and Germany have huge offshore wind farms. Some are steadily are growing.



All good questions.....

--------------------------------------------------

As for offshore, it is all in the EU, and analysts there estimate it costs $0.20/kWh currently, with prices still slowly falling (compare with CapeWind wants to lock in $0.18/kWh +inflation).  There is ~6 GW capacity installed.  It is growing 30% per year.

This compares to onshore, which is worldwide, has >300 GW installed, and costs $0.05-0.10/kWh where it is currently being built.  Prices are basically flat because better sites (giving cheaper power) are being used up.

Stated another way, onshore costs a couple bucks a watt, $/W, and can pay it back from power sold at market rates (<$0.10/kWh), whereas offshore costs several $/W, and might recoup half of that.  The difference is an effective subsidy, either from a gov't check or a ratepayer. So, building a GW of offshore right now will cost a premium of $1-2B.  I can believe the EU has sunk that much (~$10B) to develop their offshore.  Can/will they grow it 20x bigger at this price (which would still be smaller than their onshore)...I don't think so, unless it gets a bit cheaper.

Of course I was a longtime fan of all this stuff, and if PV was going to stay expensive, I would be bullish on offshore b/c there isn't enough onshore.  Cheap PV, however, especially with (speculative) cheap grid storage, just seems likely to be a game changer that will wipe out the future development of anything else that isn't as cheap and as green, which would just leave onshore wind and hydro.

--------------------------------------------------

I guess I like the nanoflow cell a LOT better than I like hydrogen FC.  And if we had developed it 10 years ago using all the cash from the 'Hydrogen Economy' boondoggle, maybe it would be on the road now and a success.  Like Hydrogen however, there is the dreaded 'gas station' problem.....who's going to build out a national/global network of ionic liquid refilling stations? As you know well, EVs don't have this problem given 90% home charging.  And the maintenance-free nature of electric charging stations allows even a (well-funded) startup to build out a whole national network of electric quickcharge stations.


----------



## begreen (Aug 9, 2014)

Good points about offshore wind. The thought of coal being dead still is a sticker. When you say 'coal is dead', in what time frame is this? Germany dropped nukes and is back to coal. Yes they are super bullish on solar and making progress, but coal is still their 24/7 power source for over 40% (like us) . China is largely coal powered and still investing heavily there. South Africa, Australia, India and Poland are mostly coal powered.  As much as I want to see this number turn around I think vested interests are going to be heel draggers. 

http://blogs.reuters.com/data-dive/2013/10/30/the-problem-with-moving-away-from-coal-power/


----------



## woodgeek (Aug 9, 2014)

Fair enough.  I'm assuming as soon as roughly comparable cost alternatives exist in sufficient quantity, coal will be phased out.  Solar without storage is approaching the right price point now, but is still too small.  At current growth rates, though, PV will start cutting into all FF energy in about 10 years or so, and could replace it in 20, assuming cheap storage appears.

At current rates of emission, CO2 is increasing by 2.5 ppm per year.  I think PV **could** allow us cut emissions by >50% in as little as 20 years, which in my understanding would lead to CO2 levels approaching an asymptote around 450 ppm.  Bill McKibben would be pissed, but 'the worst' would be avoided.


----------



## begreen (Aug 9, 2014)

That's a good start, but it needs to be multifaceted if we are to get to 350 ppm CO2 or less. The transportation sector needs to be addressed too. And then there is this issue of waste and gluttony... We can't go on using 2-3x per capita energy as the rest of the industrialized world. It is not sustainable. 

PS: Toward your prior point - Can the next generation make a difference? You bet.


----------



## woodgeek (Aug 9, 2014)

I fear that if we get to a more or less stable CO2 level, even with a climate noticeably different from the one we have now, the folks alive then will not see a need to revert to a (historical) climate different from the one they have lived their whole life in.

Over generational time, when it suited us we have altered habitats on a continental scale, often without really being aware of it.  Sometimes a forest regrows and natural habitats come back (sort of, in a degraded form).  I think this happens not because we want to 'rewild', but just that what we were using the land for ceased to be so useful or profitable, so we moved on and got our thneeds elsewhere.

In the country west of Denver, I recently saw the Pine Beetle wiping out the forests.  When I read the historical plaques, they told about how the entire region had been clearcut for fuel for mining operations in the 1800s, and all the forest we thought of as 'natural' was regrowth during the 20th century. Makes you think...pine beetles and fire clear the land (again), another (resistant) species takes root, and 100 years from now its all forested again in whatever climate prevails then.

Perhaps future generations will be more enlightened....heck I guess we are trying to bring back wolves, the everglades, oyster reefs and chunks of the prairie, and clear rats from the Galapagos.  Who knows what the kids will try.


----------



## begreen (Aug 9, 2014)

Without dropping back to the 350 ppm number the risk of irreversible change due to the much greater threat of permafrost methane release increases to become the key issue. There is already evidence that this is on the rise. Second to that, my hunch is that ocean acidfication is becoming a front burner issue that won't be ignorable.


----------



## BrotherBart (Aug 9, 2014)

The risk of the permafrost release is huge. That and the scheduled 150 year solar flare release. Actually have to kinda wonder about what if the big ones of both happened at the same time.


----------



## begreen (Aug 9, 2014)

Besides the permafrost release there is concern about the massive stores of deep sea frozen methane. As warmer currents make their way into the Arctic ocean this release grows. The impact as they say in the software biz is non-trivial.  We can't afford to raise the bar for CO2 emissions without risking adding to the momentum of irreversible systems release. Current news on arctic methane release is not good. 

http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/8401/20140805/fd-methane-plumes-seep-frozen-ocean-floors.htm


----------



## Where2 (Aug 9, 2014)

woodgeek said:


> Coal and Nukes are already dead.
> ... Most existing (major) Utilities will continue to exist...but your bill will be more complicated.



I wish you'd tell my electric company nuclear is dead. They're still trying to get $$$ for engineering, and permitting for more than one new reactor which may never be built, but the customers will continue to have to pay for it until it truly gets canned.

It is a given my electric bill will get more complicated. As PV becomes more common, at some point my electric utility will want a payment for some portion of my "Net Metered" energy. It is a simple calculation, the "Smart Meter" already tracks how much I have fed to the grid. All these bogus ALEC driven models that want a fixed monthly fee for "net metering" overlook the easy to determine scalable actual customer impact net metering has. Base my impact on the grid on how much I "Net" to the grid every month, not some random fixed fee that exceeds what I originally paid in expenses to maintain the grid before I installed PV.

When I compare kWh used per month with my co-workers, my 53 year old house with two occupants is keeping up with a family of 3 in a house that is only 13 years old with all new windows and solar hot water.

If some handy new battery technology comes along that allows me to on-site store my excess electrons, I'd consider upping my PV array to a system large enough to handle 100% of my home's needs. In the meantime, I will continue to automate devices throughout my home to make the most of the energy I generate on-site, and feed as little back to the grid as I can.


----------



## BrotherBart (Aug 9, 2014)

Where2 said:


> I wish you'd tell my electric company nuclear is dead.



Wish you would tell the CEO of our co-op that coal is dead. His fifteen year dream of breaking out of the agreements for nuke and NG power finally happened and he took us to a bunch of coal plants. Just as NG prices dropped through the floor. And the nuke plant has a design life that has a long time to go.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Aug 10, 2014)

since it has been brought up that methane MAY be a larger problem, here are a couple papers that say it MAY not be. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v497/n7451/full/nature12129.html
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFMPP11A0203F
learned a little here. didn't realize the arctic was ice free so recently. begs the question of the affect of methane release back then.
a whole lot of thoughts and questions.


----------



## woodgeek (Aug 10, 2014)

begreen said:


> Besides the permafrost release there is concern about the massive stores of deep sea frozen methane. As warmer currents make their way into the Arctic ocean this release grows. The impact as they say in the software biz is non-trivial.  We can't afford to raise the bar for CO2 emissions without risking adding to the momentum of irreversible systems release. Current news on arctic methane release is not good.
> http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/8401/20140805/fd-methane-plumes-seep-frozen-ocean-floors.htm



This same story more or less has gone viral like 4 times over the last 5 years, and every time I've tried to bite into it, I can't find anything hard there. The story at your link quotes the scientists themselves saying their conclusions are preliminary and 'speculative'.

The natural mixing time for the ocean below 50m or so is measured in thousands of years.  I do not think there is a lot methane hydrate shallower than that.  The stuff thats deeper, until I see someone argue compellingly otherwise, will likely still be there 1000 years from now. The scientists **hypothesize** that a finger of warm water may be present in that area to explain the needed warming on the sea floor, but did not report any sea floor temp measurements?



begreen said:


> Without dropping back to the 350 ppm number the risk of irreversible change due to the much greater threat of permafrost methane release increases to become the key issue. There is already evidence that this is on the rise. Second to that, my hunch is that ocean acidfication is becoming a front burner issue that won't be ignorable.



Hmmm.  I have never actually seen or studied the science behind the 350 number, nor have I heard anyone really promulgate it other than McKibben, who I have little respect for. I see his organization as a little too much of a personality cult, filled with young people, driven by the usual....fear and uncertainty.  I'd be happy to be educated otherwise, but Bill has lost me.  I don't like folks that push fear as a way to get ahead.

While I am 100% onboard with the science and existential threat of AGW, the science I read still seems to contain a lot of uncertainty re both climate sensitivity to forcing (making the predicted degree of warming uncertain ±50%) and the non-linear rates at which different sinks remove CO2. Bottom line: I think the amount of CO2 emission reduction required to stabilize ppm CO2 remains highly uncertain....could be anywhere from  60% to 90% reduction required. I also do not currently believe in abrupt 'tipping points' to an unlivable climate, nor have I seen any scientists really selling the idea in a way that sounds to me like they believe it.

Pollyanna mode off....

Of course, I think extinction is THE real problem, and AGW is just the latest way that humans are finding to destroy habitats wholesale without having to lay a finger on them, and has the effect of wiping out 'preserved' habitats (e.g. Yellowstone) as well.  Will the warming of a 450 ppm climate suffice to effectively destroy or significantly degrade all existing habitats?  I think it is within the error bars.

The ocean acidification problem has legs. The habitats and megafauna of the ocean now are really different relative to that from 50 or 100 years ago, what they would look like in 50 years and at 450 ppm CO2 are really unknown, but it might not be pretty.  The major uncertainty IMO is 'mixing'.  It seems acidification effects are not (currently) global...but localized to surface waters which could be getting their CO2 from localized emissions.  I don't know.

Sea level rise is also baked in.  Future archeologists will have a nice chronology of human artifacts laid out (underwater) along the coastlines of the world.  They'll be happy.

---------------------------------------------------

The current FF technology use pattern (and its growth) leads us to a broken climate and biosphere by 2100 at the very latest, but most of the problem is future emissions.  New technology (PV and EVs) have the **technical potential** to get us to a much reduced CO2 emission rate, at a price for 'energy services' similar to what we pay now.   This allows most fossil carbon to be left in the ground, and maybe leaves us an Earth with a stable climate and natural habitats not too dissimilar or displaced from historical habitats.  Will that tech be fostered and get us there in 20 years?  Or will something else come up and get in the way, as it so often does?


----------



## begreen (Aug 10, 2014)

http://350.org/about/science/


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Aug 10, 2014)

seems like we are heading away from progress, but it is tied together. Hansen a great mind, lousy predictor of temps.. can't predict temp but can tell us where co2 levels should be.no need to fill space with the charts. his 1988 a,b,c, chart off just a little. his c scenario with no co2 increase since 2000 would alter his entire chart upward away from the /3-.5 actual rise in temps. off by what percentage. sources in the article date to 2008-09, time for him to adjust prognostication again?


----------



## woodgeek (Aug 10, 2014)

begreen said:


> http://350.org/about/science/



So the 350 thing goes back to Hansen, and a paper of his from 2008.  I don't want to pick on Hansen, who I still think is honestly trying to do good science, and who has been treated very badly and developed some unpleasant, but ultimately defensive behaviors.

If Hansen's view still holds in 2030, folks can push harder to drive ppm CO2 below 450.  Cheap RE will be an essential part of their strategy.

The 'Progress' part IMO, and relevant to the OP, is that while our view of science of AGW is not so different from 10 years ago, 2004, the realization of cheap PV changes the future view for the better..... 

No longer do we have to imagine implementing costly public policy (e.g. carbon taxes) to force expensive clean energy (a la Cape Wind), battle with FF interests, make do with less energy (e.g. putting on a sweater, shudder) and developing all sorts of new RE schemes....kite power, tidal barrage, low-temp geothermal and OTEC and urban windmills.

Now we just need some (cheap) mandates for solar, to streamline permitting, maybe fund some loan guarantees for grid storage tech and grid upgrades and then free enterprise will take it from there.  And it might just get there faster than expected in 2004.

I'd say that is progress.


----------



## begreen (Aug 10, 2014)

"Rainy" Seattle has panels going in at the rate of one every 4 seconds on average this year according to our installer (unconfirmed). If so that would be amazing. We pay a lot more per KWh due to the Made in WA incentive plan, so the rate of adoption is quite remarkable. 
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/envi...make-gains-america-even-rainy-seattle-n169021


----------



## woodgeek (Aug 11, 2014)

begreen said:


> "Rainy" Seattle has panels going in at the rate of one every 4 seconds on average this year according to our installer (unconfirmed). If so that would be amazing. We pay a lot more per KWh due to the Made in WA incentive plan, so the rate of adoption is quite remarkable.
> http://www.nbcnews.com/science/envi...make-gains-america-even-rainy-seattle-n169021



So, that is 8 million panels per year.....maybe ~1000 MW of PV just in Seattle Metro??  Sounds a little high?


----------



## woodgeek (Aug 11, 2014)

Another side effect of cheap PV....the death of the 'Passive House'?

An oldie from Holladay: http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/musings/net-zero-energy-versus-passivhaus

In current new construction, the lowest 'cost of ownership' option is to build a house with about half the insulation level of a Passive house (but still about 2-2.5x thicker than a current best code), put in all electric heat and DHW, and throw enough solar panels on the roof to get to Net Zero Energy, on a seasonal basis with a grid-tie system.  IOW, the savings on the insulation and extra framing materials more than pay for enough PV to make up the difference in recurring energy costs, at today's prices.  The amortized cost of the resulting NZE house is lower than passive house, due to lower construction costs, and also slightly lower than a code built house, due to lower utility bills for the 20-30 year life of the PV.

Think about it...a normal looking, mainstream, low maintenance house that adds no (net) energy usage to the grid, and uses no FF.  This was a dream in the 70s, and now you can just go buy one.  No muss no fuss.

In green circles the Passive/NZE wars have been raging for a few years now...the originator of the Passive Haus concept appears to be solidly against building less insulated houses + PV, despite them being cheaper, using less materials, and consuming less energy.  In the US, there are multiple entities that certify Passive house, and some are moving towards NZE, some are not.  So sad.

---------------------------------------------------

Of course the big issue was always legacy housing stock.  In round figures, we can characterize thermal performance with a Home Heating Index (HHI) in units of BTU/sq.ft.HDD.  Ten years ago, the median figure for US houses was 10, with a standard deviation of 3-4.  Leaky old barn houses were 13-15, tight energy efficient houses were 7.

On this scale, Passive Houses are '1', needing just 10% as many BTUs as a typical 2004 US house (can 'heat with a hairdryer').
The sweet spot for NZE houses these days is '2', needing 2x as many BTUs as a Passive house.

In contrast, current best code houses (most states still use older codes) are about '5' or so, using half as much energy as typical houses in 2004.

In terms of retrofit, a typical US house might have been built at 15 before the 70s, or at 10 afterward.  Many older houses were insulated in the 70s, going from 15 to ~10.

*The good news:*
The current 'airseal and upinsulate' retrofit work in the US can take most houses to the 5-7 range for $3-7k (often covered nearly 'free' by utility billing programs), and just a few days of work, and pays back in 5-10 years (if not subsidized).  The resulting houses are much more comfortable, less drafty, healthier, have better humidity control summer and winter, and have better indoor air-quality (provided no indoor smokers or allergen sources).

*The bad news:*
Taking most US houses well below the 5-7 range, like 1-3, a 'deep energy retrofit', requires such extensive work that the cost can be $50-100k, and the payback is usually not there unless you *assume* a very long amortization and (usually) very expensive future energy.  No new technology to fix this appears to be in the offing, as it requires destroying the entire interior or exterior detailing (or both) to do the work.

In energy circles, this seemed to put a floor under future home energy use....turning over all the housing stock in the US will take many decades, not 15-20 years, appearing to lock in a HUGE amount of FF demand/usage before 2100.

*Progress:*
Houses that have been (cheaply) airsealed/retrofit to the HHH= 5-7 range can be comfortably heated with affordable (<$10k retrofit) air-source heat pumps, at annual energy costs that are well below what many folks pay now (e.g. for oil or propane).  While these houses are unlikely to become NZE houses (their roofs are too small by about half for the PV required to cover space heating/cooling or oops, point in the wrong direction), in a future PV+storage grid in the US, all these houses can be FF/CO2 free at reasonable cost (for retrofit and energy bills).

Of course, the above ASHP claim currently does not apply to folks with climates much colder than say, Boston, but still covers a significant majority of the US population. And the practical cold limits of ASHPs are still improving.

So, progress in modern ASHPs allows us to affordably 'decarbonize' most of US residential energy usage in existing houses when the PV gets built out, in perhaps as little as 15-20 years.

We won't get a 'Post Peak Oil' world where the lucky/smart/rich few are comfortably living in villages of 'resilient' Passive houses each heated by burning a small bundle of sticks, while the hoi polloi are freezing in their nearly unheated legacy houses in grubby coats.

Instead, folks will be able to safely and comfortably heat their existing houses, which have been retrofit to use efficient electrical heat (in many houses the 3rd or 4th different fuel since it was built), using effectively zero-carbon power (from off-site 'industrial' PV and grid storage), at a utility cost roughly comparable to the best late 20th century rates.


----------



## begreen (Aug 11, 2014)

woodgeek said:


> So, that is 8 million panels per year.....maybe ~1000 MW of PV just in Seattle Metro??  Sounds a little high?


It did to me too. I asked for his source, haven't heard back yet. I guess that could just be the current rate of installation and not a year round average. His company is going like gangbusters.


----------



## begreen (Aug 11, 2014)

We'll be lucky if our house is a 10. I've tightened it up a lot, but there are core construction issues that would require pulling the siding and then residing to address. The ASHP is an excellent choice in our environment. If I built new I would solar site the house and take advantage of winter passive solar gains. There are a lot of good common sense designs that don't heat overload. Personally I'd rather have a passive solar design that can breathe a bit more than an air tight box depending on HRV to make it habitable.


----------



## jebatty (Aug 12, 2014)

Maybe my calculation is in error, but here goes for BTU/sq.ft.HDD for our 1956 single story house with full basement: new windows, mostly new wall insulation at 6" fiberglass, some at 3.5", and some wall original with 1"+/- stuff, well insulated attic. House has SW exposure with good passive solar through the windows fall, winter, spring.

1500 sq ft main level + 1500 sq ft basement = 3000 sq ft of energy space
Total energy usage: 4 cords of aspen/year space heating = 13,700,000 cord x 4 = 54.800,000 btu
Plus for all electric house, except for wood heat = 12,000 kwh/yr x 3412 = 4,094,400 btu
Total 58,900,000 btu
HDD about 9000 (balance point 65F, which is about what we do), some years higher, some lower

BTU/sq.ft.HDD = 58,900,000 btu / 3000 sq ft / 9000 = 2.18 BTU/sq.ft.HDD
Pretty good for a legacy stock house.



> Woodgeek:
> The sweet spot for NZE houses these days is '2', needing 2x as many BTUs as a Passive house.
> In contrast, current best code houses (most states still use older codes) are about '5' or so, using half as much energy as typical houses in 2004.



Our goal is NZE by reducing to 9000 kwh/yr, which we estimate will be provided by the 6.5kw PV, will add some active solar hot air for the basement to reduce electric heat needed for the basement, and continue with wood heat which is NZE. Since we already have done a lot to reduce kwh, moving from 12,000 to 9,000 will be a challenge.


----------



## jharkin (Aug 12, 2014)

begreen said:


> We'll be lucky if our house is a 10. I've tightened it up a lot, but there are core construction issues that would require pulling the siding and then residing to address. The ASHP is an excellent choice in our environment. If I built new I would solar site the house and take advantage of winter passive solar gains. There are a lot of good common sense designs that don't heat overload. Personally I'd rather have a passive solar design that can breathe a bit more than an air tight box depending on HRV to make it habitable.




I bet you are doing better than that BeGreen. My house is a_ lot _older and with a lot of airsealing and blown in insulation Ive got the calculated energy use over the winter down to around 11BTU/ft2*HDD on a gross bases, or almost 9  on a net basis after stack losses.  This is with relatively inneficient heat sources - an 83AFUE  gas boiler and the woodstove thats realistically not much over 70%.

I could get that a little bit better if I ripped out the antique steam heat system and put something more modern in... but thats about it. Any more gains would mean destroying what little historic character the house has left and at that point you might as well tear down 

When I moved in we were over 15.


----------



## jharkin (Aug 12, 2014)

BTW... thanks all of you for a very interesting read - one of the best threads Ive read in a while.




woodgeek said:


> I fear that if we get to a more or less stable CO2 level, even with a climate noticeably different from the one we have now, the folks alive then will not see a need to revert to a (historical) climate different from the one they have lived their whole life in.
> 
> Over generational time, when it suited us we have altered habitats on a continental scale, often without really being aware of it.  Sometimes a forest regrows and natural habitats come back (sort of, in a degraded form).  I think this happens not because we want to 'rewild', but just that what we were using the land for ceased to be so useful or profitable, so we moved on and got our thneeds elsewhere.
> 
> ...




That's not unique to the west.  You know that most of our forest here on the east coast is second growth.  Part of my interest in early American history has my wife and I pouring over old books and photos how this town looked earlier in the history of my house.  We are basically in the woods today, but a picture from the 1880s of our neighborhood you cant see a tree for miles - its all farmland.  Most of the first growth forest on the east coast was cut before the civil war to build houses, ship lumber back to England, fuel peoples homes etc.  And those old forests where nothing like today - they where full of giant oaks and white pines that towered to 200ft+, aka "King's trees" that were taken to be used as Royal Navy masts.

I remember reading someplace that if we burn all the fossils we will naturally return the climate to the way it was before they got buried. Which I believe was a time of tropical rainforests at the poles and mosquitos the size of bald eagles;  right?  I hear climate skeptics argue - so what, that sounds nice"  Im not so sure  ....


----------



## begreen (Aug 12, 2014)

Our house was attacked by yuppies in the mid-80s that sucked the character out of the house and made it a sheetrock palace, complete with McDonalds style huge picture windows. The house now has a true foundation, sits 3 ft higher, has most trim restored and some nice details added. We have replaced the picture windows with 3 window assemblies, laid oak floors and staircase, and rebuilt the upstairs to have a central bath and 3 real bedrooms (There were two before with a bathroom larger than the living room, complete with 80 gallon tub!) At each stage I have sealed walls that we opened and have had insulation blown in. But still there is leakage due to a dropped ceiling, recessed cans up the wazoo, and no wind wrap on the house, just clapboards over the sheathing. I haven't calculated the BTUs per sq ft, but they are a huge leap lower from when we moved in. Replacing the propane furnace with a good heat pump helped a whole lot with the bottom line heating bill.


----------



## begreen (Aug 12, 2014)

jharkin said:


> That's not unique to the west.  You know that most of our forest here on the east coast is second growth.  Part of my interest in early American history has my wife and I pouring over old books and photos how this town looked earlier in the history of my house.  We are basically in the woods today, but a picture from the 1880s of our neighborhood you cant see a tree for miles - its all farmland.  Most of the first growth forest on the east coast was cut before the civil war to build houses, ship lumber back to England, fuel peoples homes etc.  And those old forests where nothing like today - they where full of giant oaks and white pines that towered to 200ft+, aka "King's trees" that were taken to be used as Royal Navy masts.



Indeed not. A whole lot of the eastern US was clearcut and farmland. I believe there is more forest there now than there was in 1900. Virgin forests are now rare, but second and third growth is common. Where I live was completely clearcut around the turn of the century. Virgin fir was prime wood for local shipbuilding. In place large farms developed. Now it is returning to forest. When we first moved here we had a great view to the north. 20 years later it is mostly tree obscured. Some returning big doug firs are already over 100 ft tall.
http://www.slideshare.net/WorldResources/virgin-forests-southern-usa


----------



## semipro (Aug 12, 2014)

You have to be careful of terminology when talking forests.  Lumber companies frequently brag that there are more trees in today's forests than there were in 1960 (or some other time).
More trees yes, but of what size.  More forest yes, but of what board-feet per acre.  And so on.
Like so many things, quality does matter and the devil is in the details.


----------



## begreen (Aug 12, 2014)

More progress in solar. Their current cells are at 35.5% efficiency, goal >50%. I love it.
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/529651/stacking-cells-could-make-solar-as-cheap-as-natural-gas/
http://semprius.com/


----------



## woodgeek (Aug 12, 2014)

jharkin said:


> I remember reading someplace that if we burn all the fossils we will naturally return the climate to the way it was before they got buried. Which I believe was a time of tropical rainforests at the poles and mosquitos the size of bald eagles;  right?  I hear climate skeptics argue - so what, that sounds nice"  Im not so sure  ....



On long time scales, volcanoes release CO2  (at a rate << than humans industry), which gets sunk into both fossil carbonate shells and fossil hydrocarbons, both process happening largely in the oceans.

Long ago, when the Sun was younger and dimmer, the Earth's oceans used to sometimes freeze over all the way to the equator, often for very long periods of time, called the 'Snowball Earth' state.  Current thinking is that this stable frozen state (ice reflects sunlight away) was eventually broken by the slow accumulation of volcanic CO2 to high levels...since the ocean was frozen over, it couldn't sink that carbon.  Eventually, when the ice started to melt, the high CO2 greenhouse effect + dark ocean absorber would whiplash the whole planet up to a very warm, potentially even ice free state in relatively little time.  Then the CO2 would drop back down and things would settle down for a while.


----------



## begreen (Aug 12, 2014)

I remember those days fondly growing up.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Aug 13, 2014)

We could have easily saved out own domestic solar companies with a more aggressive approach on cheap foreign dumping of less then cost panels. Mainly by china. They accomplished just what they intended which was to dominate the world market.


----------



## begreen (Aug 13, 2014)

Large entrenched energy systems are holding up progress here. Coal-fired states in particular are heel dragging.

http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/why-sunshine-state-saying-no-solar-power.html


----------



## Where2 (Aug 14, 2014)

begreen said:


> Large entrenched energy systems are holding up progress here. Coal-fired states in particular are heel dragging.
> 
> http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/why-sunshine-state-saying-no-solar-power.html


Yup, that's just the tip of the ice berg. We've had two editorial pieces in print recently in Florida explaining how bad solar and net metering is...

Meanwhile, all my friends across America and my co-workers would gladly trade electric bills with me. $47.07 for July with over 120 hours of run time on my 3.5 ton A/C unit. That's with a little 4.4kW array. After spending $460 total to heat/cool and run my all electric house the past 12 months, I wouldn't own another property without a PV system. The sun comes up: it works.


----------



## Frozen Canuck (Aug 14, 2014)

Where2 said:


> We've had two editorial pieces in print recently in Florida explaining how bad solar and net metering is...


You are kidding right? We get flyers with the monthly bills from our utility asking if we would like to install solar all the way up here. Just has to be a faster payoff in south fl rather than northern Alberta. Tough to justify up here with current costs, down there no brainer.


----------



## begreen (Aug 14, 2014)

Without a doubt FC, but when the media is owned by Murdoch, et al they control the message.


----------



## Where2 (Aug 15, 2014)

Frozen Canuck said:


> You are kidding right? We get flyers with the monthly bills from our utility asking if we would like to install solar all the way up here. Just has to be a faster payoff in south fl rather than northern Alberta. Tough to justify up here with current costs, down there no brainer.


Wish I was kidding, but here are the two links...  
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/20...718_1_solar-panels-net-metering-electric-grid
http://www.tallahassee.com/story/op...gail-maciver-robbing-peter-pay-paul/13746861/

Contrary to the second link, the State of Florida didn't kick in a dime toward my PV system. We're the "Sunshine State" in nickname only. Please don't remind me how much $$$ I spent getting a Florida Solar Energy Center PV system certification (NEC 2011 review) that is only required by and only valid in the State of Florida. Having the Florida Solar Energy Center PV System certification paperwork certainly greased the wheels of my local building department. The building official did a quick web query to determine my FSEC PV certification was legit (meaning the design was NEC 2011 compliant), then simply had to determine whether the signed and sealed professional structural engineering documents I submitted with my building permit application where genuine. The structural engineering documents indicate my array will withstand a 3-second gust of 170mph (274kph) from a hurricane. All in, I've got more than $1000 in paperwork which collects no sunshine and generates no energy.

Looking forward to building an array at 45.9°N. The array at 26.8°N collected 6MWh last year.


----------



## jebatty (Aug 15, 2014)

I'm at 46N, 6.5 kw system installed at the end of October 2013, just passed 7MWh on Aug 12.


----------



## begreen (Aug 16, 2014)

Just an observation, I am not a stakeholder in wind power, but that industry does not seem dead. According to this report it too will see more than a doubling in 4 years from ~3% to >7% of the world's electrical power.

*Wind Power Will Deliver More Than 7 Percent of the World’s Electricity by 2018*
Headwinds in several key markets, including the United States and Spain slowed growth in the global wind power market dramatically in 2013.  Still, wind power now supplies nearly 3 percent of the world’s electricity, and is expected to grow strongly over the next several years.  According to a recent report from Navigant Research, wind power will deliver 7.3 percent of the electricity consumed worldwide by 2018.

“Last year was the first in which the wind industry experienced negative growth since 2004, but there are signs that the 2013 slowdown will turn out to be an anomaly,” says Feng Zhao, research director with Navigant Research.  “As wind turbine vendors search for new opportunities in emerging markets, primarily in Latin America and Africa, and develop machines for maximum energy production in low wind speed areas, the industry is expected to add another 250 gigawatts of capacity through 2018.”
http://www.navigantresearch.com/research/world-market-update-2013


----------



## woodgeek (Aug 19, 2014)

IF you want to geek out for a hour, you can watch the Tesla CTO's keynote talk about stationary energy storage.  Last 20 mins are Q&A.



IMHO, Tesla the company (much like Tesla the man) is a rare combo of genuine innovation, leveraged by first class PR that shades into BS.  The CTO talk above, is short on PR, and long on their current plans for the coming PV revolution, including the infamous 'duck graph', relevant for this thread, starting at ~27 mins.


----------



## begreen (Aug 19, 2014)

Storage is key no matter what the source of energy. Without significant snow accumulation in the mountains and dams hydro would be cyclical as well. Practical stationary electrical storage will make solar and wind much more feasible. But will it be lithium-ion (or other rare earth metal) based as it appears Tesla is developing or lower cost and common material flow battery tech?


----------



## woodgeek (Aug 19, 2014)

begreen said:


> Storage is key no matter what the source of energy. Without significant snow accumulation in the mountains and dams hydro would be cyclical as well. Practical stationary electrical storage will make solar and wind much more feasible. But will it be lithium-ion (or other rare earth metal) based as it appears Tesla is developing or lower cost and common material flow battery tech?



--Li is not a rare earth element.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_earth_element but is the 25th most abundant element in the Earth's crust, about the same as Cl.
--Li-ion batteries only contain ~1 lb of Li per kWh of storage, my LEAF only contains ~20 lbs of Li in a 500 lb battery.
--IIRC Nickel is one of the more massive and costly components (and rarer than Li).

It would appear that Tesla thinks there may be a value proposition in Li-ion stationary storage.  Or you could look at their currently fielded efforts (residential w/Solar City, Supercharger stations and at Fremont) as research projects getting real world data/experience. 

Of course, if Tesla thought some of the flow battery tech was a winner, they prob have enough cash and motivation to buy it and develop it themselves.  Perhaps they don't have enough expertise with elctrochemistry (yet) to make that call reliably with a new technology.

At $100/kWh_capacity and 2000 'cycles', you are at a reasonable 5 cents/kWh stored.  Current costs are ~$300/kWh, but there are no real publically available figures.  At 1 cycle per day, 2000 days is 5.5 years, not bad for financing/payback.  An expensive 10000 cycle battery would last 27 years, but financing would kill you.


----------



## begreen (Aug 19, 2014)

I stand corrected, I thought lithium was in short supply for batteries in the US last year. Looks like that has turned around with recent supplies in Wyoming being discovered.


----------



## woodgeek (Aug 20, 2014)

The Li production market IS weird and poorly developed.  It does not seem to be concentrated into ores by geologic processes, and like REEs is most easily extracted from brines.  The companies doing this are getting revenue from many different elements in the brines, not just Li.

The price of Li is not set by an international trade process, but negotiated with the producers. It seems that battery makers buy LiOH at $3 to $4 per pound.  I suppose that means that would be ~$20 per pound of elemental Li.  For comparison Ni is currently $8/lb.

The ~20lbs of Li in my EV would be ~$400, a non-trivial but not limiting fraction of the battery cost (Nissan has a replacement plan that values a new battery at $6500).  In a future '$100/kWh_storage' Li-ion battery, the Li would be ~20% of the cost.

http://lithiuminvestingnews.com/5886/lithium-prices-2012-carbonate-hydroxide-chloride/


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 6, 2014)

An interesting report re the above PV-EV-storage nexus was recently published by the bank UBS:

http://www.qualenergia.it/sites/default/files/articolo-doc/ues45625.pdf

There is a summary here: http://insideevs.com/subsidy-free-evs-solar-battery-storage-2020/

Notably, it suggests that fossil fuel electricity production will become 'extinct' over then next 20 or so years.

Those radical bankers.


----------



## dougstove (Sep 6, 2014)

So when will the stock markets factor in a drop in value of 'stranded' fossil fuel reserves?
(I am loving this thread).


----------



## Frozen Canuck (Sep 7, 2014)

dougstove said:


> So when will the stock markets factor in a drop in value of 'stranded' fossil fuel reserves?



Likely only after we have converted over to renewables. Even then we will have to be careful with pricing or it (mostly coal) will be shipped to another country as their lowest cost fuel.


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 10, 2014)

dougstove said:


> So when will the stock markets factor in a drop in value of 'stranded' fossil fuel reserves?
> (I am loving this thread).



Great question.  I wish I knew...the king of all shorts.  My WAG would be that it depends on the fuel.  For Coal, the answer is probably about now, for oil sometime after EVs get to ~30% of US car sales (from the current 0.7%), and for natural gas.....it could be a long time.


----------



## dougstove (Sep 11, 2014)

Thinking again, if PV seriously offsets fossil fuel demand, the value of the marginal fossil fuel resources (low grade coal, tar sands, deep offshore oil) will fall below their recuperation and processing costs.  The value of the high quality accessible fossil fuels will be more stable, to fill ongoing needs for jet fuel, plastics etc.
I think there is a sub-text to Canadian & Australian energy policies:  Pipe it and burn it now while it is still worth something.


----------

