I think one of the Waitsfield VT gang who started all sorts of businesses, Vermont Castings, Vermont Elm, Northern Power, Controlled Energy Corp and several others was selling that for commercial walk in coolers a while back . As long as there is good screen on the inlets to keep the critters out.
We need an energy miracle
- Thread starter begreen
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil. -
Super Cedar firestarters 30% discount Use code Hearth2024 Click here
- Status
IN 2015, it is hard to separate truth from fiction....its the 'disinformation age'.
I liked this article: http://www.vox.com/2015/12/12/9981020/paris-climate-deal
Basically, you are talking about bending emission projection curves. And then translating those emission curves into projected temperature curves using another model. The plot in my link suggest 2100 climate is 2.5-2.7°C elevated with the Paris pledges, 3.3 - 3.8°C without, BAU.
If true, is that better? Yes. Is it enough? No, we can and will opt to do better.
Keep in mind that most of the pledges only run until 2030-2040, and then assume that emission flatline at that (reduced) rate forever. The action is in the **process**...by which emissions are tracked/audited internationally, countries are compared to their pledges, and pledges are enhanced.
All that really happened was a commitment by 195 countries to avoid the 'crazy' BAU projections that led to +5°C climate in 2100 if everyone tried to have American energy tastes for the next 85 years.
The pledges are disappointing because they are still somewhat less than what some analysts (like Lovins) would consider negative cost. If every country pledged to reduce emissions in every way that saved them net money overall (including health externalities), the pledges would have been a little more aggressive. I think the leaders know this, and thus as folks get a better feel for Lovins' disruptions, the pledges will get tighter over time.
The problem is going to be psychological on different levels. 1) People are going to complain the deal didn't fix it (which is kind of true because it only begins to mitigate greater damage), and critics will use this "didn't fix it" to debunk the science and solutions; at the very least muddy the waters in the debate. 2) Big changes are already baked into the future, so a defeatist attitude or "as long I am alright" attitude will probably develop and create more inertia towards the issue. The issue will never get the war footing "can do attitude" of WWII, for example.
At this point, we are banking on major technological shifts, attitudes, and breakthroughs to save the day. Basically, to use a football analogy, it is the beginning of the third quarter and we are down big time.
As for Paris, I will just parrot what Dave Roberts said so well---its a conceptual and process breakthrough, not a solution:
http://www.vox.com/2015/12/15/10172238/paris-climate-treaty-conceptual-breakthrough
I guess I am getting a bit more blithe on the the 'climate debate'. I think climate deniers have utterly lost, and they just don't know they are dead yet...they're zombies. At this point the fraction of the population that believes in climate denial is shrunk down to the minority of the minority. That is, (weak) majorities of **registered Republicans** want to regulate CO2 and foster renewable energy. These majorities become significant minorities among independents and huge majorities of Dems.
In other words, rather than being a wedge issue for the left, AGW is a wedge issue for the right...only a minority of GOP voters deny AGW and yet 100% of the candidates deny AGW! When the same thing happened for gay rights a few years ago (going from a multi decade wedge issue for Dems to a wedge issue for the GOP) then suddenly we had change. And everyone was totally surprised.
In summary, the GOP is standing in a hole re AGW, and still digging for all its might to try to get out of it. I can't wait to see how that will work out for them.
If the above is true...why would all the GOP candidates take these positions?? Follow the money:
http://www.vox.com/2015/12/16/10246986/republican-donors-climate
As for Paris, I will just parrot what Dave Roberts said so well---its a conceptual and process breakthrough, not a solution:
http://www.vox.com/2015/12/15/10172238/paris-climate-treaty-conceptual-breakthrough
I guess I am getting a bit more blithe on the the 'climate debate'. I think climate deniers have utterly lost, and they just don't know they are dead yet...they're zombies. At this point the fraction of the population that believes in climate denial is shrunk down to the minority of the minority. That is, (weak) majorities of **registered Republicans** want to regulate CO2 and foster renewable energy. These majorities become significant minorities among independents and huge majorities of Dems.
In other words, rather than being a wedge issue for the left, AGW is a wedge issue for the right...only a minority of GOP voters deny AGW and yet 100% of the candidates deny AGW! When the same thing happened for gay rights a few years ago (going from a multi decade wedge issue for Dems to a wedge issue for the GOP) then suddenly we had change. And everyone was totally surprised.
In summary, the GOP is standing in a hole re AGW, and still digging for all its might to try to get out of it. I can't wait to see how that will work out for them.
If the above is true...why would all the GOP candidates take these positions?? Follow the money:
http://www.vox.com/2015/12/16/10246986/republican-donors-climate
All true, and when people are faced with such tall tasks, they either go to work on it, or just accept the fate that is coming and learn to live with it. I think most people accept it and are willing to live with the consequences, especially it they are not going to be around for the nastier stuff 90 years later.
I'm not sure if the Paris talks outcome is going to have much positive influence in our corporate driven country. If the President has put something in action the current Congress is sure to try to reverse it. Example, the new budget has removed restrictions from exporting crude oil. This sounds like a wide open door to mass drilling and a lot more carbon heading into the atmosphere as it is drilled, refined, shipped and burned.
http://www.newsweek.com/big-oil-companies-cant-wait-repeal-us-export-ban-406518
http://www.newsweek.com/big-oil-companies-cant-wait-repeal-us-export-ban-406518
Selling price of oil is based on supply and demand. And even with a cartel, attempt to raise price is based on limiting supply. Currently a large over supply; hence low price. Putting more oil into the world markets from US exports is not likely to raise any prices. So long as key countries are dependent on oil revenues, supply is not likely to be cut back, prices stay low, and effect of lifting the export ban may not have much effect.
I suspect that the ban on exports was related to the belief in limited oil resources. Although limited, the limit is a long, long way off. So, no need to conserve for short-sighted people, governments, etc. It seems most humans are incapable of conserving and are programmed to be wasteful.
I suspect that the ban on exports was related to the belief in limited oil resources. Although limited, the limit is a long, long way off. So, no need to conserve for short-sighted people, governments, etc. It seems most humans are incapable of conserving and are programmed to be wasteful.
I actually expect this to lower oil prices by increasing the glut on the market. The squeeze is being put on oil dependent economies. Russia is having to redo their budget due to revenue shortfalls.
http://neurope.eu/article/putin-blames-low-oil-prices-for-russian-budget-gap/
http://neurope.eu/article/putin-blames-low-oil-prices-for-russian-budget-gap/
If we were smart we would think in terms of energy security ,use the new found supplies to hedge our future energy security from an oil thirsty world. Also it could go a long way to correct the massive federal debt we have racked up. But alas we will probably do the opposite and squander the excess oil we have found by pumping it at fire sale prices into a glutted market driving prices down and hindering transition to a less oil dependent society when the debt bomb finally explodes and trashes our economy. IMHO
FTG I can't believe that your post hasn't received more (any) discussion in this thread. I have been following LFTRs for a few years now and these are the only real "energy miracles" that stand a hope in hell of breaking mankind's fossil fuel addiction and providing the kind of energy at the rate we are consuming now and will likely be consuming in the future. Everything else is pretty much just sticking a finger in the dyke.
Thorium reactors are an interesting concept, the Indians were pursuing it as they have plenty of thorium but little uranium. I haven't seen if they have made any progress working up a commercial version. I don't see deployment happening fast enough. I see the small modular reactors based on 50 year old submarine reactor technology far faster to deploy.
You can keep your Thorium Reactors....they are way too expensive. The fuel reprocessing is a mess chemically and no-one knows how or wants to do it.
The only energy miracles you need are EVs and Solar: watch this if you haven't seen it already.
The only energy miracles you need are EVs and Solar: watch this if you haven't seen it already.
CaptSpiff
Minister of Fire
Looping back to the Wind discussion, I not sure what you meant by "Mass went for it anyway".
If you're referring to the Cape Wind proposal, I don't think that ever happened (or did I miss it?).
While the list of Offshore proposals is long, the only real site with platforms in the water I know of is the Block Island site.
That site in RI is under construction for a half dozen big wind turbines (read 400-500 feet high) to come online in 2017.
They only have the base platforms in the water presently but construction schedules look promising.
The project was personally "hand-walked" thru the application process by the governor's chief of staff; now he's the CEO.
The project will have huge visual impact on the residents of Block Island, but since they were never mainland grid connected with
their rates about $0.50/Kwh, they expect to see a 50% cost drop once grid-tied. That's an incentive they could, and did, support!
That same company is now trying to convince our local utility LIPA to sign up for a 2 dozen wind turbine paper project about 30 miles east of Montauk Point. The initial financials are projecting a energy purchase cost of $0.50/Kwh with a 20 year power purchase agreement. No that's not a misprint, and yes those costs are wholesale to the utility, not the customer. Critics estimate it could raise the cost of the avg customer by $0.04/Kwh. And yes, it did make the short list for final consideration.
In keeping with thread title: I think I need an energy miracle
Last edited:
Cape Wind has been on again and off again for 15 years. I don't know the current status, or care. But the state did at one time sign a purchase agreement at 15 cents/kWh wholesale, with the increment to be borne by the consumer. 
I happen to think offshore is prob important technology for the future, esp in New England with a lot of winter energy demand and little winter solar resource (aka cloudy). And the costs will likely come down once folks start building it. But asking retail consumers to shoulder the burden is ridiculous...it will just build an army against it, as it has in MA. Dumb.
Now that the 2.2 cent onshore wind PPA is being phased out (over the next 7 years), then they should put in a 5 cent 10 year PPA for grid-tied offshore. That would bring you LI quote down to a nice 2 cents wholesale.
I happen to think offshore is prob important technology for the future, esp in New England with a lot of winter energy demand and little winter solar resource (aka cloudy). And the costs will likely come down once folks start building it. But asking retail consumers to shoulder the burden is ridiculous...it will just build an army against it, as it has in MA. Dumb.
Now that the 2.2 cent onshore wind PPA is being phased out (over the next 7 years), then they should put in a 5 cent 10 year PPA for grid-tied offshore. That would bring you LI quote down to a nice 2 cents wholesale.
I used to work for a manufacturer of "community" wind turbines. They are currently hyping "grid parity" installations. Along with wind engineering, there is a lot of financial engineering associated with wind. Take very low interest rates, add in substantial federal and state credits and then statewide RPS requirements along with SRECs and in most cases the grid parity is that the turbine generated power is equal to what the customer would be paying for utility power. The utility power rates are actually subsidizing wind in the rate and gird parity gets even slipperier.
In my area of northern NH, the wind resource is about as good as it gets in the northeast, yet wind farms go elsewhere. The reasons they do are that the wind farm developers are unwilling to pay for transmission upgrades. Most of the offshore proposals are also based on someone else building the underwater transmission infrastructure. There was one large wind farm built and a much smaller one going on line currently in the area, when there is large demand for power south of our area, all the plants in the area are limited in output due to transmission capacity so the wind farms really don't help when they are needed.
Massachusetts tried to force Cape Wind at similar high costs down the utilities throats using coercion. They utilities eventually capitulated but the FERC stepped in and pushed back. Once Cape Wind lost the long term well over market rate power rates it crumbled.
In my area of northern NH, the wind resource is about as good as it gets in the northeast, yet wind farms go elsewhere. The reasons they do are that the wind farm developers are unwilling to pay for transmission upgrades. Most of the offshore proposals are also based on someone else building the underwater transmission infrastructure. There was one large wind farm built and a much smaller one going on line currently in the area, when there is large demand for power south of our area, all the plants in the area are limited in output due to transmission capacity so the wind farms really don't help when they are needed.
Massachusetts tried to force Cape Wind at similar high costs down the utilities throats using coercion. They utilities eventually capitulated but the FERC stepped in and pushed back. Once Cape Wind lost the long term well over market rate power rates it crumbled.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/o...ight-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region
Bill Gates talking about his moonshot investment funds. I guess it doesn't hurt throwing different ideas at the issue and seeing what sticks. However, when so many billionaire interests and governments get together they then become a force in of themselves that may obstruct better ideas from developing.
Seems to me they should go heavy on what has worked - tax credits to individuals and businesses to get efficient, and get renewable. The market then figures out how to best get those tax credit dollars.
Gates also talks about developing nations like India, which will require much electricity to grow, however, their government is having a very hard time providing basic services (look up strikes and water shortages), which indicates the challenge is not technological so much as organizational and political.
On a side note, anybody else notice the stock prices for solar companies lately? SunEdison? This is a tough growth / maturity moment for them, transitioning from startup technology companies on the road to mature companies that have to now survive in the market space with all the other energy competitors out there. I imagine some will fail and the business will consolidate into a couple of market leaders. May take a few more years of pain.
Bill Gates talking about his moonshot investment funds. I guess it doesn't hurt throwing different ideas at the issue and seeing what sticks. However, when so many billionaire interests and governments get together they then become a force in of themselves that may obstruct better ideas from developing.
Seems to me they should go heavy on what has worked - tax credits to individuals and businesses to get efficient, and get renewable. The market then figures out how to best get those tax credit dollars.
Gates also talks about developing nations like India, which will require much electricity to grow, however, their government is having a very hard time providing basic services (look up strikes and water shortages), which indicates the challenge is not technological so much as organizational and political.
On a side note, anybody else notice the stock prices for solar companies lately? SunEdison? This is a tough growth / maturity moment for them, transitioning from startup technology companies on the road to mature companies that have to now survive in the market space with all the other energy competitors out there. I imagine some will fail and the business will consolidate into a couple of market leaders. May take a few more years of pain.
Last edited:
Good points. The investing atmosphere is the energy field has, IMO, a lot of amateur speculators. A lot of people are looking at falling oil prices and having the bright idea of buying oil stocks and shorting solar cos. As if oil stocks have to rebound, and solar is obviously going to cease to exist.
It will all work itself out eventually.
It will all work itself out eventually.
sportbikerider78
Minister of Fire
I also worked for a wind company.
Financial engineering is a polite way to put it. I used to call it the most effective way to remove taxpayer money and put it in the wind manufacturers pockets. Wind has its place in places where power generation and/or transmission is very expensive....mountaintops, islands, very remote areas, ect.
There it needs no subsidy.
Actually, courtesy of speaker Ryan the RE subsidy was extended well into the next POTUS admin, with a planned gradual phaseout. Both sides thought they got a deal, figuring their guy would either cancel or further extend the policy in 2017.
I am ok with a modest 'US style' subsidy for RE b/c I honestly believe it levels the playing field versus fossil companies that get an effective subsidy through externality costs paid by all of us directly and through our taxes (say, in additional health care costs, cleanup, etc). I also think that much more generous subsidies, as in Japan and the EU, have lead to mal-investments that have subsequently become political footballs and stifled further growth. The US had a bad experience with that during the Carter admin, re domestic solar HW, which I think has immunized us a bit afterwards.
That might be true if the competition was not already very heavily subsidized. So by that same logic oil & gas need no subsidy, instead of the $22B it gets annually. And ethanol, don't get me going.
sportbikerider78
Minister of Fire
This is kind of besides the point, as I don't support targeted subsidies for petroleum companies, but I'd like to see a good clear breakdown of what those subsidies are. I get the strong impression that most of them are the same sorts of R&D and related tax breaks that almost every company in the US gets.
That itself segues towards another conversation about why our corporate tax code is so absurdly convoluted, but while the big numbers frequently get thrown out as talking points, an apples to apples comparison never gets made. Solar gets a massive 30% credit just for the sake of being solar, and that's just one of layers of subsidies. $22 billion to the US oil and gas sector is only something like 2-3%, and more to the point, I haven't seen it confirmed that it's a subsidy specifically for being oil and gas companies, as opposed to a subsidy for simply being a company.
There are many sides to that debate. The petroleum industry does get a lot of special tax rates that essentially are subsidies. They also are able to form instruments like MLPs to avoid corporate tax rates. Globally the amount is much larger.
http://www.taxpayer.net/images/uploads/Understanding Oil Gas Subsidies(3).pdf
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...s-with-550-billion-in-subsidy-hurt-renewables
http://www.taxpayer.net/images/uploads/Understanding Oil Gas Subsidies(3).pdf
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...s-with-550-billion-in-subsidy-hurt-renewables
- Status
Similar threads
