I think global population growth should be a lot bigger worry than global warming
. http://www.peterrussell.com/Odds/WorldClock.php
. http://www.peterrussell.com/Odds/WorldClock.php
They go hand in hand though. The end game to both problems is basically the same solution: a more sustainable future so resource scarcity doesn't lead to Malthusian outcomes and extreme poverty and war that would come from fighting over global resources. If China, India and other developing countries are going to follow the same growth model that the developed 1st world has then we're going to need massive innovations in energy, food supply, materials.
re: global population control....Most projections show that as the world is getting older and the developed world is breeding less (as well as regulations in developing world re China) that population growth is slated to peak around 2050-2060. So combined with innovation it is possible that could stave off the most dire predictions about "The Population Bomb" as Paul Eurlich once put it.
So you believe politicians can just magically make it happen?
All they're doing with these 'green' energy shams and carbon taxes is raising the cost of living for everyone - nothing is being 'solved'.
Once again, the 'solution' is always the same - another creative way for politicians to steal people's money.
Who said anything about magic or politicians?
You can think we need to decarbonize our energy sources and and at the same time think the current system has flaws.
And I'll repeat the most important point that I can make on this issue: even if I didn't think there was any man made climate change, I would still think our current energy infrastructure needs to go in the next quarter to half century so the issue is really just a distraction and moot to me. Others might use it to make money or advance other agendas, but any rebuttal to that should be coming up with a more appropriate response to the problem rather than denying its existence.
Cleaner, cheaper, more abundant energy sources make us richer and safer. But I'm sure the ME/OPEC countries hope we stay on fossil fuels forever.
And solar, wind, battery storage and battery improvements aren't shams. All have seen significant cost/quality improvements in the last 6-7 years. Solar and wind are competing without subsidies in certain markets. I still think nuclear will need to be the default baseload of a 0 carbon future but these technologies have made huge gains.
People might not like how they came to market or the subsidies but the underlying technology works. You put a panel on a roof in Arizona and it is going to generate electricity.
People might not like how they came to market or the subsidies but the underlying technology works. You put a panel on a roof in Arizona and it is going to generate electricity.
That is patently untrue, at least not on the scale under discussion.
Germany invested billions in its bid to go 'green' and the results were pretty much what you'd expect: HIGHER Co2 emissions AND massive skyrocketing electricity rates for consumers. It's a typical central planning disaster. Merkel estimated Germany would end up spending a trillion by the time they are done and they literally have nothing to show for it. Germany has since scaled back their "green" ambitions significantly.
What these globalists and their corrupt scientists backed by their fraudulent computer 'models' are demanding is the largest-scale industrial intervention since the collapse of the USSR. It doesn't a psychic to figure out how this all ends.
CHART: Power Is A LOT More Expensive Under Obama
ANDREW FOLLETT
Energy and Science Reporter
Record low costs for generating electricity thanks to America’s new natural gas supplies created by hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, haven’t translated into lower monthly payments for consumers due to new regulations.
The price of generating electricity in the eastern U.S. fell by half under Obama, but utilities raised monthly bills for residential customers, according to government data.
The biggest price increase in the U.S. was in Kansas, where prices rose from 8.16 cents per kilowatt-hour in January, 2009, to 11.34 cents in January, 2015. That’s a 39 percent increase in the price of electricity during Obama’s tenure. States like Idaho, Nebraska, Wyoming, South Dakota, Missouri, Utah, and Ohio saw enormous increases in the price of electricity as well, according to data from the Energy Information Administration.
States with large and developed natural gas and oil industries generally saw their average electric bill drop. The biggest price drop was in Texas, where prices fell by almost 10 percent during Obama’s tenure. States like Louisiana, Arkansas, Maryland, Florida, Delaware, New Jersey, Maine and the District of Columbia all saw the average electric bill fall since January, 2009.
Source: Map Created By Daily Caller News Foundation using data from Energy Information Administration
“President Obama openly ran in 2008 on a platform of making electricity rates ‘skyrocket’ and bankrupting anyone who dared to build a coal plant in the United States,” Travis Fisher, an economist at the Institute for Energy Research, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “Now, more than seven years into his presidency, it should come as no surprise that his efforts have taken a widespread toll in the form of higher electricity rates for nearly every state in the union.”
Despite falling generation costs, electrical utilities are being forced by the government to pay for billions of dollars of government-mandated “improvements” and taxpayer support for new wind and solar power systems.
“The administration has subsidized our highest-cost sources of electricity–new wind and solar facilities–while shutting down a significant portion of our most economic source, which is the existing workhorse fleet of coal-fired power plants,” Fisher continued. “In fact, rates are going up when they should be going down. For example, natural gas prices reached their peak in 2008 and have since fallen by two-thirds. Coal prices are stable. What’s really behind the increase in electricity prices is an increase in subsidized and mandated wind and solar power combined with a decrease in low-cost electricity from coal.”
Most analysts agree rising residential electricity prices are also harmful to American households. Pricey power disproportionately hurts poorer families and other lower-income groups as the poor tend to spend a higher proportion of their incomes on “basic needs” like power, so any increase in prices hits them the hardest.As essential goods like electricity becomes more expensive, the cost of producing goods and services that use electricity increases, effectively raising the price of almost everything. The higher prices are ultimately paid for by consumers, not industries.
Follow Andrew on Twitter
Send tips to andrew@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/09/power-is-a-lot-more-expensive-under-obama/#ixzz4RANl6svW
ANDREW FOLLETT
Energy and Science Reporter
∧
The average American’s electric bill has gone up 10 percent since January, 2009, due in part to regulations imposed by President Barack Obama and state governments, even though the price of generating power has declined.Record low costs for generating electricity thanks to America’s new natural gas supplies created by hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, haven’t translated into lower monthly payments for consumers due to new regulations.
The price of generating electricity in the eastern U.S. fell by half under Obama, but utilities raised monthly bills for residential customers, according to government data.
The biggest price increase in the U.S. was in Kansas, where prices rose from 8.16 cents per kilowatt-hour in January, 2009, to 11.34 cents in January, 2015. That’s a 39 percent increase in the price of electricity during Obama’s tenure. States like Idaho, Nebraska, Wyoming, South Dakota, Missouri, Utah, and Ohio saw enormous increases in the price of electricity as well, according to data from the Energy Information Administration.
States with large and developed natural gas and oil industries generally saw their average electric bill drop. The biggest price drop was in Texas, where prices fell by almost 10 percent during Obama’s tenure. States like Louisiana, Arkansas, Maryland, Florida, Delaware, New Jersey, Maine and the District of Columbia all saw the average electric bill fall since January, 2009.
“President Obama openly ran in 2008 on a platform of making electricity rates ‘skyrocket’ and bankrupting anyone who dared to build a coal plant in the United States,” Travis Fisher, an economist at the Institute for Energy Research, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “Now, more than seven years into his presidency, it should come as no surprise that his efforts have taken a widespread toll in the form of higher electricity rates for nearly every state in the union.”
Despite falling generation costs, electrical utilities are being forced by the government to pay for billions of dollars of government-mandated “improvements” and taxpayer support for new wind and solar power systems.
“The administration has subsidized our highest-cost sources of electricity–new wind and solar facilities–while shutting down a significant portion of our most economic source, which is the existing workhorse fleet of coal-fired power plants,” Fisher continued. “In fact, rates are going up when they should be going down. For example, natural gas prices reached their peak in 2008 and have since fallen by two-thirds. Coal prices are stable. What’s really behind the increase in electricity prices is an increase in subsidized and mandated wind and solar power combined with a decrease in low-cost electricity from coal.”
Most analysts agree rising residential electricity prices are also harmful to American households. Pricey power disproportionately hurts poorer families and other lower-income groups as the poor tend to spend a higher proportion of their incomes on “basic needs” like power, so any increase in prices hits them the hardest.As essential goods like electricity becomes more expensive, the cost of producing goods and services that use electricity increases, effectively raising the price of almost everything. The higher prices are ultimately paid for by consumers, not industries.
Follow Andrew on Twitter
Send tips to andrew@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/09/power-is-a-lot-more-expensive-under-obama/#ixzz4RANl6svW
Germany should've never divested from nuclear after the Fukushima scare. Their weather is horrible for solar and they tried to scale up way too fast and they have all these horrible feed-in-tariff laws that make it really difficult for the power companies. They also didn't bother to make any of the grid improvements needed for such a drastic change. Germany experiment isn't really analogous to other solar markets.
Areas with a lot of sun have far better prospects for utility-scale and rooftop solar. In the West/Southern US, electricity rates for consumers aren't skyrocketing and the rooftop payback period is getting shorter and shorter.
In the sunny areas it actually helps the utilities because it smooths out demand times and takes away their peak generation which is the most expensive generation they have.
I'm not arguing wind/solar in some areas at some point won't become more cost efficient than the status-quo of staying on the grid. Innovation leads to better and cheaper market choices.
If 'alternatives' ever live up to the political hype, people will buy them. It is that simple. The reason they are talking mandates is because people aren't buying their 'green' snakeoil.
All government mandates and subsidies end up doing is driving up the price of energy for consumers. That's the lesson of Germany, Canada, UK, Greece etc. - the futility of government "climate change" policies.
"Green energy" = Obamacare on steroids
If 'alternatives' ever live up to the political hype, people will buy them. It is that simple. The reason they are talking mandates is because people aren't buying their 'green' snakeoil.
All government mandates and subsidies end up doing is driving up the price of energy for consumers. That's the lesson of Germany, Canada, UK, Greece etc. - the futility of government "climate change" policies.
"Green energy" = Obamacare on steroids
Islands trying to use 100% green energy failed, went back to diesel
“One of the biggest reasons that natural gas, oil, and coal are the world’s most-used energy resources is because they are incredibly reliable,” Daniel Simmons, vice president for policy at IER, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “By the same token, wind struggles to compete with conventional fuels because it is inherently unreliable.”
https://www.cfact.org/2016/03/20/islands-trying-to-use-100-green-energy-failed-went-back-to-diesel/
Oh well...
“One of the biggest reasons that natural gas, oil, and coal are the world’s most-used energy resources is because they are incredibly reliable,” Daniel Simmons, vice president for policy at IER, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “By the same token, wind struggles to compete with conventional fuels because it is inherently unreliable.”
https://www.cfact.org/2016/03/20/islands-trying-to-use-100-green-energy-failed-went-back-to-diesel/
Oh well...
After billions and billions of taxpayer $$$ -Renewable energy increased by only 1% in US #ThanksObama
Jim Hoft
In the short-run at the beginning of the product cycle, subsidies can create demand which can in turn improve quality/create economies of scale. As long as the subsidies are properly phased out then it is a suitable way for renewables to enter the energy space. Unfortunately, we'll probably never phase the subsidies out when we should've done so already. I don't think we should've done that but it did have an effect on demand/cost trajectory. Even if you got rid of the subsidies now, solar is probably further along than it would've been without them.
Oil/Gas have a 100+ year head start with massive global subsidies to compete with because many countries that hate us need oil to remain the worlds default energy since they have no other relevant industry. So when the US has a subsidy for solar or wind, it is really just counteracting the massive global subsidies for oil already in place.
Yes, subsidies can create artificial demand. That's the problem - these markets have yet to become self-sufficient and profitable. As soon as the subsidy dries up, so does the market.
I get what you're saying (improving battery technology etc.) but until we see start seeing some of this 'green' energy making a significant dent in the market, the technology just isn't there.
Don't expect to be seeing solar and wind powered planes, trains and autos anytime soon.
I get what you're saying (improving battery technology etc.) but until we see start seeing some of this 'green' energy making a significant dent in the market, the technology just isn't there.
Don't expect to be seeing solar and wind powered planes, trains and autos anytime soon.
