Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
The Making of Biden's Superfast Push for Clean Electricity
I said "last try"; not last post, Lewis, but obviously your reading skills are on par with your reasoning skills. I had hoped that an actual discussion on merits, not ideology, might be possible, but apparently it isn't only one 'side' which is close-minded and intractable. It's noteworthy, I think, that I hadn't responded to YOU, but to David; as it was obvious that you had no interest in undertaking any actual THINKING; only in talking points. I still hold out SOME hope that David is willing to look beyond any personal prejudices he might have, but I'm certainly done wrestling in the mud with YOU. Have a nice life interacting only with like-minded people.
Btw other readers (if there are any at this point), if Biden can actually reverse decades of anti-fission sentiment, then that might give his 15-year goal of 'clean energy production' a chance of being realized. I'm not sure that's the BEST solution, or that it has even a REMOTE chance of occurring, but it probably is the only way it COULD happen. MY preconception is that this is NOT going to be among the solutions being considered, but maybe I'll be proven wrong; we'll see. Whether Biden does or doesn't support that approach, I think it's dead in the water politically; probably on both sides of the aisle.
Geothermal has definite possibilities from a technical standpoint, if only to bleed energy from that supervolcano we have sitting under Yosemite before it eventually erupts and kills all of us. The problem is that it is going to take time and money, and from the perspective of our representatives, it's all downside and no upside FOR THEM. Someone ELSE, many years down the line will get the credit, and they'll only get flack over the cost! So they're going to go for the quick, politically-correct 'fix'; if anything. If it can't be completed during THEIR term, it's off the board... I know, cynical much?
Think of it this way, Racqueteer, if someone said Trump’s plan to build a wall to keep Mexicans out of the U.S. is a terrible idea, a waste of money that will never be completed and won’t work, would you consider that a “non political” statement on this mutual fund board, regardless of whether it proved true or not? I doubt anyone would. Now consider that the wall policy has already been in effect and can be objectively evaluated to a degree. By comparison, in this case you are attacking a particular political party’s policy that is just in its idea stages and claiming your remarks are apolitical. I don’t believe you. Except one thing you may be right about it, is the GOP as it currently exists will do everything it can to kill the plan as it did everything it could to kill the Affordable Care Act and every other Obama era policy, so in all likelihood this green electricity policy will be killed in its infancy, which I suppose will make you happy. When did the GOP become the negative party of Sorry, America can’t?
I hope we can all agree that there is plenty of pollution associated with generating power from fossil fuels so is geothermal really better?
There are definitely some logistic issues with geothermal generation of power, but it IS doable given time and money. We need to keep in mind that wind generation will never be a major contributor to the grid; wind isn't dependable, and we can't build enough units to replace fuel-burning generation. Solar has the same issue; there simply isn't the landmass to hold enough panels to replace fuel burning. We have vast tracts of land area in the various desert areas, but we have transmission issues which make long-distance transmission difficult. Usually, we need the production to be relatively close to the areas which will use the power. Eventually, maybe we'll have high-temperature superconductors that will obviate that issue. That's in addition to the issues I raised earlier on. If the goal is to replace ALL fuel burning generation over a short time, then there aren't a lot of options. Realistically, fission is IT. Despite the logistic issues, geothermal COULD eliminate fuel burning generation. So could fusion or spaceborne solar; in the future.
The point is that NO true solution is going to be quick or without consequence. You need to first find some things that CAN work, evaluate the technology and drawbacks involved, and expect it to cost, not be simple, and not to have negatives attached.
>> Solar has the same issue; there simply isn't the landmass to hold enough panels to replace fuel burning.
Huh? Where did you get that?
I read this (from Off the Grid) years ago and knew about it prior, when I put solar on my roof.
2.8 acres per 1GWh. Solar would have to produce about 4 million GWh of electricity annually to provide enough energy to power the entire USA. At 2.8 acres per GWh, then about 11,200,000 acres of land would give us what we need to produce the 4,000,000GWh of solar power. There’s 1.8 billion acres of land in the USA, so about 0.6% of our land is all it would take. Wait, “all it would take”? 11.2 million acres is a huge amount of land, right? Yes and no. Now I probably would not want to build an 11.2 million acre solar farm, but spread out across the whole country that’s very reasonable. If every single family home roof top in America were covered in solar panels for example that would give us about half of the energy.
Drive around and look at commercial buildings and see how much rooftop acreage currently has solar. It is dumbfounding how much flat roof faces the sky with nothing on it but hvac equipment.
Found this, which seems to do a good job of summarizing the arguments for solar; both pro and con.
I appear to have been incorrect about the landmass required for solar panel replacement of fossil fuels, though problems related to transmission persist. They also have a lifetime of 25-30 years, apparently; so that's a LOT of replacing which would be ongoing. I apologize for my previous misstatement. No excuse; simply a case of something I KNOW which doesn't happen to be true.
BTW, I'm not known here, but those who DO know me, know that I'm pretty much apolitical. Either what someone says makes logical sense or it doesn't; their politics are irrelevant to me. I also don't make a habit of expressing my own political beliefs, as they don't fall into some neat box. BOTH major parties are problematic for me, as BOTH have to be seen as placating their extreme wings (my opinion), and I don't agree with extremist positions. My intent is not politically motivated; if you take offense with logical arguments I present, that is YOUR political predisposition talking, not mine.
@racqueteer - you said "They also have a lifetime of 25-30 years, apparently; so that's a LOT of replacing which would be ongoing."
By the same token furnaces, pumps, drilling/excavating machinery, etc., etc., etc. break down and need to be replaced. Maybe the costs are a tossup and maybe they aren't I don't know. However one option leaves us with possibly a cleaner planet to live on while we figure it out or discover something better. I say we at least start to move the other way even if 15 years is not doable. It's a goal much like putting a man on the moon. Whatever we're doing now isn't going to cut it and there is no planet B.
The thing that irks me—and I admit I have been overly irritable lately—is this notion that liking the status quo and believing change in either direction is extremism is”apolitical.” It is not apolitical. It is called conservatism. And we can no longer afford the status quo when it comes to fighting climate change. If you are living in a society rooted in laws and politics, there is no apolitical view. Even not voting is political, an apathetic belief in libertarianism or anarchy or a simple disgust with the existing choices. And claiming to be “logical” from one’s perspective on these issues is just subjectivity masked as reason to assume a superior tone. Really logic except in abstract math or physics is just emotion + power, often presented by men, historically although not necessarily put forward by white European/American men, to justify doing whatever they pleased to satisfy their secretly highly emotional desires and maintain the existing power structure, i.e., the status quo. In fact, it is a classic argument by men to dismiss women’s views by saying “Oh, she’s just being emotional” or worse “hysterical.” A similar argument was used to oppress minorities historically by claiming that only white men were capable of high reason and other races were not.
As I said earlier, I was responding to the SPECIFIC post by the op. Whether we should do "something", whether we should be supporting the President Elect, what our political beliefs might be, and all the OTHER crap dragged in to dispute what I posted originally are irrelevant to anything I wrote.
Look, you can choose to take offense to whatever you like, but simply because you INFER something from what I post doesn't mean it was intended; nor even true. If something I wrote is factually untrue, all you have to do is point it out and support your position. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it - simple. I've been accused of all KINDS of crap here based on ZERO evidence. The "ALL CAPS" one was a particular favorite, but the missed reference to what I THOUGHT was a well-know quote from Mark Twain was good also. A couple of you have spent so much time jumping to conclusions it's a wonder you haven't reached the moon by now.
Not that it's anyone's business, but I didn't vote for Trump in either election and voted AGAINST him this time. That's an entirely different conversation, however. Can we take productive measures to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels? Sure, we can - again, a different conversation. Should we become reliant on fission power? Different conversation. Will fission become acceptable and should it be? Different conversation. Etc. I've tried to stay with the op's intended question; while others have been all over the lot with unrelated issues. If you want to talk about something specific, start a thread on that topic. I'll give my opinion, provide what facts I have, and you can do the same; again, simple. Continually moving the line around, introducing new scenarios, accusing a poster of stuff he never said, etc, are tactics that smack of ideology or desperation. Maybe you don't even realize you're doing it at this point. Maybe it's just a reflexive response; I used to get some of that from high school students I was teaching.
I was in a side branch of this business and see a lot of grey in the topics. One thought, when determining how much solar capacity is needed the studies need to include 7 to 10 days worth of batteries to allow for a string of dreary winter days. Or, as an alternative, a supply of natural gas plants that can run when necessary. And to insure those plants are always available, they need to be duel fuel - diesel fuel - backup.
If you want to question your beliefs (on both sides?) I recommend you check out Judith Curry’s site.
Also books such as: Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarm Hurts Us All, by Michael Schellenberger reinforce racqueteer’s points. His primary recommendation is that the world focus on developing nuclear power.
Rbrt, haven’t checked out your link, but will. Just a quick comment: battery technology is another problematic issue. We just don’t seem to have sufficient energy density in our existing battery technology. That will be a critical factor in applying solar power. We need a viable method of storage. What we have is OK, but I don’t think it will suffice for our needs. This is another area where high temperature superconducting materials would help.
Edit: Ok, just took a quick look at that link. Not going to be a quick read! Thanks for posting it.
15 years is a long time. 15 years before we landed on the moon we didn't even have an orbital flight. It seems like a short time but a lot can happen in 15 years, more so with an optimistic outlook. I'm sure in 1954 there were people who said there is no freakin way we'll ever land a man on the moon in 15 years, that's crazy talk.
A description of what is considered to be Rejected Energy (for the 2018 version of the chart):
All energy use results in some losses, shown on the charts as rejected energy. This energy most often takes the form of waste heat, such as the warm exhaust from automobiles and furnaces. The efficiency of the nation’s cars, lightbulbs and factories determines how much waste heat is produced and how much fuel and electricity can be put to productive use.
All energy use results in some losses, shown on the charts as rejected energy. This energy most often takes the form of waste heat, such as the warm exhaust from automobiles and furnaces. The efficiency of the nation’s cars, lightbulbs and factories determines how much waste heat is produced and how much fuel and electricity can be put to productive use.
You can make (hydrogen) fuel using water and solar power, as he does. The byproduct of making hydrogen is oxygen, and the byproduct of burning it is water. Hydrogen is among the most plentiful elements on earth, so you don’t have to go to adversarial countries or engage in environmentally destructive extraction to get it. The car is as quiet to drive as any other electric, it requires little maintenance, and because it doesn’t carry 1,200 pounds of batteries, it has a performance edge.
Solar is so cheap, we need to build far, far more than we need.
Solar panels have become so cheap that the true cost of electricity is shifting from solar arrays themselves to the steel and land needed to house them.
That shift means it’s now cheaper to overbuild, even if producers don’t always sell the power. With the price of panels set to continue falling over the next decade, the economics will only grow stronger.
The low cost overcame renewables’ traditional weakness: the intermittency of supply if the sun or wind fails to appear. Oversizing a system by a factor of three, they found, was optimal.
@bee - I agree with you that 67% losses is a lot more than 'some'. I was thinking more along the lines of power plants, factories, businesses, home heating and cooling, planes & trains as some of the bigger sources of rejected energy.
A puzzle piece that might help solve the funding part of Biden's energy policy challenge:
Biden, who oversaw the Obama administration’s stimulus work as vice president, unknowingly left himself a down-payment for the work ahead: $40 billion in unused Energy Department loan authority awarded under the 2009 stimulus. That pot of money could offer a way to kick start his climate and infrastructure plan
the incoming Biden administration could simply tweak the loan program’s language to make it the backbone of a government-wide clean lending bank that enables the rapid deployment of new innovations, like the installation of batteries and other energy storage technology to support the growth of renewable power.
This article looks at the potential impact of Democratic control of the Senate on Biden's climate proposals. Manchin's chair of the energy committee will soften the potential blows to carbon based fuels.
Comments
Btw other readers (if there are any at this point), if Biden can actually reverse decades of anti-fission sentiment, then that might give his 15-year goal of 'clean energy production' a chance of being realized. I'm not sure that's the BEST solution, or that it has even a REMOTE chance of occurring, but it probably is the only way it COULD happen. MY preconception is that this is NOT going to be among the solutions being considered, but maybe I'll be proven wrong; we'll see. Whether Biden does or doesn't support that approach, I think it's dead in the water politically; probably on both sides of the aisle.
Geothermal has definite possibilities from a technical standpoint, if only to bleed energy from that supervolcano we have sitting under Yosemite before it eventually erupts and kills all of us. The problem is that it is going to take time and money, and from the perspective of our representatives, it's all downside and no upside FOR THEM. Someone ELSE, many years down the line will get the credit, and they'll only get flack over the cost! So they're going to go for the quick, politically-correct 'fix'; if anything. If it can't be completed during THEIR term, it's off the board... I know, cynical much?
Disadvantages Of Geothermal Energy
I hope we can all agree that there is plenty of pollution associated with generating power from fossil fuels so is geothermal really better?
Except one thing you may be right about it, is the GOP as it currently exists will do everything it can to kill the plan as it did everything it could to kill the Affordable Care Act and every other Obama era policy, so in all likelihood this green electricity policy will be killed in its infancy, which I suppose will make you happy. When did the GOP become the negative party of Sorry, America can’t?
The point is that NO true solution is going to be quick or without consequence. You need to first find some things that CAN work, evaluate the technology and drawbacks involved, and expect it to cost, not be simple, and not to have negatives attached.
Huh? Where did you get that?
I read this (from Off the Grid) years ago and knew about it prior, when I put solar on my roof.
2.8 acres per 1GWh. Solar would have to produce about 4 million GWh of electricity annually to provide enough energy to power the entire USA. At 2.8 acres per GWh, then about 11,200,000 acres of land would give us what we need to produce the 4,000,000GWh of solar power. There’s 1.8 billion acres of land in the USA, so about 0.6% of our land is all it would take. Wait, “all it would take”? 11.2 million acres is a huge amount of land, right? Yes and no. Now I probably would not want to build an 11.2 million acre solar farm, but spread out across the whole country that’s very reasonable. If every single family home roof top in America were covered in solar panels for example that would give us about half of the energy.
Drive around and look at commercial buildings and see how much rooftop acreage currently has solar. It is dumbfounding how much flat roof faces the sky with nothing on it but hvac equipment.
I appear to have been incorrect about the landmass required for solar panel replacement of fossil fuels, though problems related to transmission persist. They also have a lifetime of 25-30 years, apparently; so that's a LOT of replacing which would be ongoing. I apologize for my previous misstatement. No excuse; simply a case of something I KNOW which doesn't happen to be true.
BTW, I'm not known here, but those who DO know me, know that I'm pretty much apolitical. Either what someone says makes logical sense or it doesn't; their politics are irrelevant to me. I also don't make a habit of expressing my own political beliefs, as they don't fall into some neat box. BOTH major parties are problematic for me, as BOTH have to be seen as placating their extreme wings (my opinion), and I don't agree with extremist positions. My intent is not politically motivated; if you take offense with logical arguments I present, that is YOUR political predisposition talking, not mine.
By the same token furnaces, pumps, drilling/excavating machinery, etc., etc., etc. break down and need to be replaced. Maybe the costs are a tossup and maybe they aren't I don't know. However one option leaves us with possibly a cleaner planet to live on while we figure it out or discover something better. I say we at least start to move the other way even if 15 years is not doable. It's a goal much like putting a man on the moon. Whatever we're doing now isn't going to cut it and there is no planet B.
In fact, it is a classic argument by men to dismiss women’s views by saying “Oh, she’s just being emotional” or worse “hysterical.” A similar argument was used to oppress minorities historically by claiming that only white men were capable of high reason and other races were not.
I don't know about that
Look, you can choose to take offense to whatever you like, but simply because you INFER something from what I post doesn't mean it was intended; nor even true. If something I wrote is factually untrue, all you have to do is point it out and support your position. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it - simple. I've been accused of all KINDS of crap here based on ZERO evidence. The "ALL CAPS" one was a particular favorite, but the missed reference to what I THOUGHT was a well-know quote from Mark Twain was good also. A couple of you have spent so much time jumping to conclusions it's a wonder you haven't reached the moon by now.
Not that it's anyone's business, but I didn't vote for Trump in either election and voted AGAINST him this time. That's an entirely different conversation, however. Can we take productive measures to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels? Sure, we can - again, a different conversation. Should we become reliant on fission power? Different conversation. Will fission become acceptable and should it be? Different conversation. Etc. I've tried to stay with the op's intended question; while others have been all over the lot with unrelated issues. If you want to talk about something specific, start a thread on that topic. I'll give my opinion, provide what facts I have, and you can do the same; again, simple. Continually moving the line around, introducing new scenarios, accusing a poster of stuff he never said, etc, are tactics that smack of ideology or desperation. Maybe you don't even realize you're doing it at this point. Maybe it's just a reflexive response; I used to get some of that from high school students I was teaching.
If you want to question your beliefs (on both sides?) I recommend you check out Judith Curry’s site.
Also books such as: Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarm Hurts Us All, by Michael Schellenberger reinforce racqueteer’s points. His primary recommendation is that the world focus on developing nuclear power.
Edit: Ok, just took a quick look at that link. Not going to be a quick read! Thanks for posting it.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-americas-energy-use-in-one-giant-chart/
Original source: https://flowcharts.llnl.gov
Americans used less energy in 2019
The comments at the end of the article are more informative than the article.
https://news.trust.org/item/20210107110130-qn5pf/