Energy: Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

My preferred energy answer: all of the above. Great topic, random thoughts:

  1. I love the idea of alternative energies, and we need to invest in them. But fossil fuels aren’t going anywhere, and remain the most economically feasible energy source. So, to suggest that there is an “either-or” is wrong, we need all. We simply need to be realists about fossil fuel.

  2. We are going to consume fossil fuels (a lot) in the near and medium term. It’s going to get pumped out of the ground, and we’ll use it. Why not pump our own, where we can be assured of a better, lighter environmental impact than if we “outsource” to countries that don’t have our environmental sensibilities? The oil will be pumped out of the ground, regardless - better that we do it, for environmental reasons.

  3. Better that we do it, for energy security purposes as well, but the fungibiilty of oil in world markets doesn’t mean that just because we pump it, we consume it, and therefore we are more energy-independent. If we pump it, we’d lower the prices (more supply), but that wouldn’t necessarily translate into dmoestic consumption of domestically-pumped oil and our independence from bad countries. We’d need to address this in ways other than domestic-exploration.

  4. We need alternative energies because of diversification benefits. Like any asset portfolio, there are inherent dangers in overconcentration in one area. We are overconcentrated on fossil fuels, and we need to diversify. That way, even if we have oil “shocks” or bad oil politics from the Middle East, we’re insulated better from their shenanigans.

  5. No, we shouldn’t rely solely on the market to dictate the path of energy, because too much of it is implicated in national security. Consumers are not (and should not be) charged with making national security decisions through their consumption preferences, and we don’t want to sit back and live with the results the market has come up with. That doesn’t mean I believe in the nationalization of energy - it just means that, realistically, for this issue, pure market economics may not and too often won’t lead to results we need.

22

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
SOLAR

Since building construction has been down, I’ve been working in the solar field for the past 2 years or so in NJ. Solar is supplementary. But even though it’s not the silver bullet (nothing is) that it no reason to dismiss it. Overall energy solutions draw from a variety of energy sources and that’s good, just like being diversified in a stock portfolio. New Jersey and most other states have ‘official’ renewable energy goals set by the state Board of Public Utilities (BPU) in the ‘20/20’ neighborhood. That means the goal is to meet 20 percent of its energy demands with renewable sources by the year 2020.

For an energy PIG like NJ, that’s HUGE. Currently, New Jersey is slightly ahead of schedule.

Since solar is expensive to implement, the recent boom is NJ solar is due to the market being supported by SRECs. Each Solar Renewable Energy Credits equals 1 million watts/hour( or 1,000 kWh) and they actually trade on a market. The price was very rich at first (over $600/SREC) and developers were installing solar like crazy for 15 or 20-year PPAs. These are Purchase Power Agreements where the developer would pay for, install, own/maintain the solar system and SRECs for 15 to 20 years and sell cheaper energy back to the host for a pre-set price per kWh that is cheaper than the utility rate. But since NJ is now ahead of schedule with solar, demand has gone down and SREC pricing is now depressed around $150/SREC. (Could be a great time to buy!). Also, the federal grant expired 12/31/2011 and that has contributed to the depressed price as well. The ITC, Income Tax Credit, is still in effect. (OK I’ll knock off the acronyms now.)

NJ has had a very robust solar market and it’s viewed as the model by many states. Obviously, it’s not because NJ has the greatest solar radiation (it doesn’t) but because of the SREC market set up. Currently, the solar industry is lobbying the state legislature to shore up the market by getting the Board of Public Utilities to revise the goals and timeline. For example, revise the targeted goal to 25/20 or 20/15, instead of 20/20. This would continue to help the depressed constructon market, thus addressing two issues at once. So far, Gov. Christie has been reluctant to take action, but the legislature meets again in a few months.

Massachusetts is in a better market position right now and we are currently looking to structure solar deals in the Boston area.
[/quote]

The issues with solar is cost and material and production. Further, if your trying to get all green, the production of solar cells are caustic as fuck to the environment.

What I favor is solar on a per dwelling basis. You gotta have a roof anyway, might as well cover it with solar panels.
Solar plants are in efficient and the grid is to wasteful to be an alternative.
The problem with home or building solar tech is its a $100,000 implementation. FUCK THAT. If I am spending 100 G’s on anything it will be a Corvette ZR1, red or yellow with Recaro seats.

23

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Why is the natural gas drum not being beat more loudly? Clean, efficient and generations and generations of readily available supplies.[/quote]

You could run the shit out of a home generator with natural gas…

You could use the natural gas line to propel a crank and turn an electro-magnetic motor. You don’t even even need to ignite the fuel…

Home generators need to got to the turbine vs. the internal combustion engine. For that application, turbines are 100000000000000000% more efficient than a briggs & stratin.

24

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
My preferred energy answer: all of the above. Great topic, random thoughts:

  1. I love the idea of alternative energies, and we need to invest in them. But fossil fuels aren’t going anywhere, and remain the most economically feasible energy source. So, to suggest that there is an “either-or” is wrong, we need all. We simply need to be realists about fossil fuel.

  2. We are going to consume fossil fuels (a lot) in the near and medium term. It’s going to get pumped out of the ground, and we’ll use it. Why not pump our own, where we can be assured of a better, lighter environmental impact than if we “outsource” to countries that don’t have our environmental sensibilities? The oil will be pumped out of the ground, regardless - better that we do it, for environmental reasons.

  3. Better that we do it, for energy security purposes as well, but the fungibiilty of oil in world markets doesn’t mean that just because we pump it, we consume it, and therefore we are more energy-independent. If we pump it, we’d lower the prices (more supply), but that wouldn’t necessarily translate into dmoestic consumption of domestically-pumped oil and our independence from bad countries. We’d need to address this in ways other than domestic-exploration.

  4. We need alternative energies because of diversification benefits. Like any asset portfolio, there are inherent dangers in overconcentration in one area. We are overconcentrated on fossil fuels, and we need to diversify. That way, even if we have oil “shocks” or bad oil politics from the Middle East, we’re insulated better from their shenanigans.

  5. No, we shouldn’t rely solely on the market to dictate the path of energy, because too much of it is implicated in national security. Consumers are not (and should not be) charged with making national security decisions through their consumption preferences, and we don’t want to sit back and live with the results the market has come up with. That doesn’t mean I believe in the nationalization of energy - it just means that, realistically, for this issue, pure market economics may not and too often won’t lead to results we need.[/quote]

My preferred answer is still to generate electricity at home… No loss in the grid, no wires stretched everywhere, no reliance on an some conglomerate who enjoys raping you daily,etc.

25

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
SOLAR

Since building construction has been down, I’ve been working in the solar field for the past 2 years or so in NJ. Solar is supplementary. But even though it’s not the silver bullet (nothing is) that it no reason to dismiss it. Overall energy solutions draw from a variety of energy sources and that’s good, just like being diversified in a stock portfolio. New Jersey and most other states have ‘official’ renewable energy goals set by the state Board of Public Utilities (BPU) in the ‘20/20’ neighborhood. That means the goal is to meet 20 percent of its energy demands with renewable sources by the year 2020.

For an energy PIG like NJ, that’s HUGE. Currently, New Jersey is slightly ahead of schedule.

Since solar is expensive to implement, the recent boom is NJ solar is due to the market being supported by SRECs. Each Solar Renewable Energy Credits equals 1 million watts/hour( or 1,000 kWh) and they actually trade on a market. The price was very rich at first (over $600/SREC) and developers were installing solar like crazy for 15 or 20-year PPAs. These are Purchase Power Agreements where the developer would pay for, install, own/maintain the solar system and SRECs for 15 to 20 years and sell cheaper energy back to the host for a pre-set price per kWh that is cheaper than the utility rate. But since NJ is now ahead of schedule with solar, demand has gone down and SREC pricing is now depressed around $150/SREC. (Could be a great time to buy!). Also, the federal grant expired 12/31/2011 and that has contributed to the depressed price as well. The ITC, Income Tax Credit, is still in effect. (OK I’ll knock off the acronyms now.)

NJ has had a very robust solar market and it’s viewed as the model by many states. Obviously, it’s not because NJ has the greatest solar radiation (it doesn’t) but because of the SREC market set up. Currently, the solar industry is lobbying the state legislature to shore up the market by getting the Board of Public Utilities to revise the goals and timeline. For example, revise the targeted goal to 25/20 or 20/15, instead of 20/20. This would continue to help the depressed constructon market, thus addressing two issues at once. So far, Gov. Christie has been reluctant to take action, but the legislature meets again in a few months.

Massachusetts is in a better market position right now and we are currently looking to structure solar deals in the Boston area.
[/quote]

The issues with solar is cost and material and production. Further, if your trying to get all green, the production of solar cells are caustic as fuck to the environment.

What I favor is solar on a per dwelling basis. You gotta have a roof anyway, might as well cover it with solar panels.
Solar plants are in efficient and the grid is to wasteful to be an alternative.
The problem with home or building solar tech is its a $100,000 implementation. FUCK THAT. If I am spending 100 G’s on anything it will be a Corvette ZR1, red or yellow with Recaro seats.
[/quote]

Yes upfront costs are killer especially for private residences. But that’s why the SREC market was developed. That’s why rebates, incentives and federal income tax credits are offered. To make it more affordable and encourage renewable energy. There’s more to the equation than just upfront capital costs. $100K would get you roughly 120 PV panel system – about 3x a typical house size.

EDIT: It keeps getting cheaper because panel prices keep dropping every month.

26

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I drive a lot for my job . One of the biggest changes I have seen over the past year and a half is wind mills , they are popping up everywhere [/quote]

Yes, but windmills are ugly, take up alot of space, have a low yield, and only work is the wind blows…Even in the windiest places, wind takes a day off from time to time…[/quote]

27

The only down side I have heard is they are difficult to service and there are not enough service techs. From the info I heard it sounds as though a Republican is doing the hiring. $20 an hour is the price I hear. Maybe pay more

28

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
I read that Gates is helping/working with China on building something called a traveling wave reactor.
That’s about all I know about it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor[/quote]

One of the good things about the wave reactor is it makes use of U238 which is much more abundant. A big limiting factor on nuclear energy is the supply of U235. So it’s a good thing.

Thorium reactors have even more potential because Thorium is quite abundant.

29

As far as the exotic new fuel ideas, I’m intrigued by algae. You know, the stuff that landed on Japan(?) a few years ago and keeps expanding and expanding. Maybe Cortes or Gambit will weigh in on that. I’ve read about several start-ups trying to develop algae as a fuel. One of the start-ups, whose name escapes me at the moment, actually has a contract with the U.S. Air Force to test algae as jet fuel. Here’s a recent article:

http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/03/the-us-air-force-dares-you-to-laugh-at-their-biofuel.php

30

'Wasn’t it only a year or so ago that Al Gore confessed he’d been handing us a taxpayer-funded line on ethanol, but now seriously touted algae as an alternative energy source? Now, right on schedule Obama proposes algae as the answer to our energy problem. Always follow the green, and we’re not talking scum. Or maybe we are.

Wonder if Warren Buffett owns algae stock, too?

You have to dig deep into this 30-page report here dime-eu.org to discover that one of Venture Capitalist KPCB [Kleiner Perkins Caufield Byers]'s GreenTech firms, Amyris Biotechnologies, is in the business of biofuels, including Algal Biofuel. Al Gore is a partner with KPCB. The firm Generation Investment, cofounded by Gore and David Bloom, also heavily invests in the CleanTech business of converting everything in the world to biofuels, although I didn’t see it directly tied to any one algae company. I’ll try to check later.

The San Francisco Bay area is just a hotbed cluster of GreenTech algal fuel startups. Didn’t Obama just come from a visit there? Isn’t that Nancy Pelosi’s home turf or nearby? Isn’t that the home of some RFK Jr interests?

BTW, you’ll be cheered to know that rooftop solar installer Solar City is ready to file an IPO with an estimated worth of $1.5 Billion. Bet you can guess what I’m going to say: Generation Investment is a major investor.’

Source: How green time flies – Gore and algae | Pull My Chain

32

Here it is … Solazyme. You know, if I wasn’t so damn busy working for a living, I’d keep a better eye peeled for these IPO’s.

Our west coast office has a few projects with Solar City. I’ll get the details and see if I can catch that one.

33

HotAir reported last week that Glauthier is a “strategic advisor” to Solazyme, the California company that is selling a portion of the biofuel to the Navy.

HotAir noted Solazyme received a $21.8 million grant from the 2009 stimulus package.

Also, writing at BigGovernment two weeks ago, Whitney Pitcher found that prior to serving as advisor to Solazyme and after his time as part of Obama’s transition team, Glauthier served of the advisory board of SunRun, a solar financing company.

In October of 2010, just a few short months after Glauthier joined SunRun’s advisory board, SunRun secured a $6.73 million grant from this Treasury Department stimulus program. The company was the ninth largest recipient of such programs through the December, 2010.

Biofuel scam - US Navy buys biofuel at four times the price whilst incurring drastic budget cuts:

34

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I drive a lot for my job . One of the biggest changes I have seen over the past year and a half is wind mills , they are popping up everywhere [/quote]

Yes, but windmills are ugly, take up alot of space, have a low yield, and only work is the wind blows…Even in the windiest places, wind takes a day off from time to time…[/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power[/quote]

Soros…again.

Anyway, wind turbines kill all the dingbats didn’t you know?

Duke energy huh?

‘Progress Energy is now poised to undergo a $13.7 billion merger with Duke Energy, a company in which Soros is also very heavily invested.’

Uh huh…

35

As much as I hate the national debt, I don’t have a problem with the Feds investing in alternative fuels. We must do that to progress towards energy independence. Besides, it promotes good old fashioned American ingenuity, free enterprise, capitalism and has people working NOW. Yes, the price/gallon is higher but the price of almost everything in its development stage is higher. As they figure this out and start mass manufacturing/refining, the price will naturally drop.

Today’s issue of Biofuel Digest gives some history on algae research, starting back in the Reagan Administration: http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2012/03/08/newt-gingrich-jumps-the-shark/

I have a much bigger problem with left wing social entitlements sucking at the trough.

36

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The only down side I have heard is they are difficult to service and there are not enough service techs. From the info I heard it sounds as though a Republican is doing the hiring. $20 an hour is the price I hear. Maybe pay more [/quote]

They are unsightly. They themselves are a pollutant, that’s one giant issue with them. They have their place, but their place is limited. How many forests would you whack down to put up wind farms? How many wildlife preserves?
They will be more practical in high deserts and coastal areas then wooded areas.

37

[quote]pushharder wrote:
ALWAYS follow the money…[/quote]

yup…

We need an antimatter plant. That’d make nuclear look like a candle. Getting the antimatter is the problem.

39

[quote]pushharder wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/08/senate-blocks-bid-to-speed-keystone-approval-but-obama-loses-dems-despite/[/quote]

That’s good news. I’m all for getting the natural gas, but do it in an environmentally responsible way.

40

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
5. No, we shouldn’t rely solely on the market to dictate the path of energy, because too much of it is implicated in national security. Consumers are not (and should not be) charged with making national security decisions through their consumption preferences, and we don’t want to sit back and live with the results the market has come up with. That doesn’t mean I believe in the nationalization of energy - it just means that, realistically, for this issue, pure market economics may not and too often won’t lead to results we need.[/quote]

Yes. A thousand times yes.

In the UK we’ve had easily available oil and cheap gas for the last 30 years and now stocks are diminishing, we’re having to import gas from Russia and even electricity derived from nuclear energy in France. Energy costs have absolutely rocketed - up 60% in the last 6/7 years. We need a broader ‘portfolio’ to reduce dependence - I don’t want Russia turning the lights on and off!

The government, to its credit, is diversifying energy stocks by ordering new nuclear plants and I can’t understand the opposition to them, considering we’re not near any plate tectonics (agree with Cortes on the Fukushima thing also). Wind farms run at 20% capacity - if you went for a job interivew and said you COULD work monday-friday but would normally work Monday, would that be acceptable? - and you have to have plants in reserve for when the wind doesn’t blow. Solar has potentila but it will take years for it to produce anywhere near what we need.

There is an option of barraging the Severn river, which could produce a massive amount of clean energy. But environmentalist protestors have vetoed it because it could affect some birds. Well, brilliant.