Renewable Energy = 90% Of New US Electricity Generation Capacity In January (Exclusive)

[ScienceRocks]

Renewable Energy = 90% Of New US Electricity Generation Capacity In January (Exclusive)
March 10th, 2015 by Zachary Shahan

Based on data from FERC and educated “other solar” (essentially rooftop solar) estimates from CleanTechnica, we’ve found that 90% of new electricity generation capacity added in the United States in January 2015 came from renewable energy sources. To be more precise, 90% came from solar and wind energy.

The largest source of new capacity came from wind energy (54.7%), rooftop solar was second (26.7%), natural gas was third (10.5%), and utility-scale solar PV brought the rest (8.1%).

Renewables did very well in January 2014 as well. Solar and wind accounted for 94%, while all renewables accounted for 99.9%.

For all of 2014, solar and wind energy accounted for 55% of new US electricity generation capacity, while all renewables together accounted for 57% of new US electricity generation capacity. Natural gas accounted for 42%, coal accounted for 0.6%, nuclear for 0.4%, and oil for 0.3%.

Of course, it’s great to see renewables accounting for the majority of electricity generation capacity growth. Comparing new capacity to cumulative installed capacity (essentially, every power plant in the US that can produce electricity), a couple of key points come out:

• Renewables are still a small portion of our electricity mix. (Wind = 5.6% and solar = 1.4%, together coming to 7%. All renewables combined = 17.2%.)
• The trend is very clearly toward renewables.

Coals dead!!! Wind and solar makes up the majority of new energy.

 

[hadit]

Renewable Energy = 90% Of New US Electricity Generation Capacity In January (Exclusive)
March 10th, 2015 by Zachary Shahan

Based on data from FERC and educated “other solar” (essentially rooftop solar) estimates from CleanTechnica, we’ve found that 90% of new electricity generation capacity added in the United States in January 2015 came from renewable energy sources. To be more precise, 90% came from solar and wind energy.

The largest source of new capacity came from wind energy (54.7%), rooftop solar was second (26.7%), natural gas was third (10.5%), and utility-scale solar PV brought the rest (8.1%).

Renewables did very well in January 2014 as well. Solar and wind accounted for 94%, while all renewables accounted for 99.9%.

For all of 2014, solar and wind energy accounted for 55% of new US electricity generation capacity, while all renewables together accounted for 57% of new US electricity generation capacity. Natural gas accounted for 42%, coal accounted for 0.6%, nuclear for 0.4%, and oil for 0.3%.

Of course, it’s great to see renewables accounting for the majority of electricity generation capacity growth. Comparing new capacity to cumulative installed capacity (essentially, every power plant in the US that can produce electricity), a couple of key points come out:

• Renewables are still a small portion of our electricity mix. (Wind = 5.6% and solar = 1.4%, together coming to 7%. All renewables combined = 17.2%.)
• The trend is very clearly toward renewables.

Coals dead!!! Wind and solar makes up the majority of new energy.

Coal is a loooong way from dead. Now if they can just bring the cost of alternative sources into the competitive range and beef up the reliability, they'll continue making strides.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Renewable Energy = 90% Of New US Electricity Generation Capacity In January (Exclusive)
March 10th, 2015 by Zachary Shahan

Based on data from FERC and educated “other solar” (essentially rooftop solar) estimates from CleanTechnica, we’ve found that 90% of new electricity generation capacity added in the United States in January 2015 came from renewable energy sources. To be more precise, 90% came from solar and wind energy.

The largest source of new capacity came from wind energy (54.7%), rooftop solar was second (26.7%), natural gas was third (10.5%), and utility-scale solar PV brought the rest (8.1%).

Renewables did very well in January 2014 as well. Solar and wind accounted for 94%, while all renewables accounted for 99.9%.

For all of 2014, solar and wind energy accounted for 55% of new US electricity generation capacity, while all renewables together accounted for 57% of new US electricity generation capacity. Natural gas accounted for 42%, coal accounted for 0.6%, nuclear for 0.4%, and oil for 0.3%.

Of course, it’s great to see renewables accounting for the majority of electricity generation capacity growth. Comparing new capacity to cumulative installed capacity (essentially, every power plant in the US that can produce electricity), a couple of key points come out:

• Renewables are still a small portion of our electricity mix. (Wind = 5.6% and solar = 1.4%, together coming to 7%. All renewables combined = 17.2%.)
• The trend is very clearly toward renewables.

Coals dead!!! Wind and solar makes up the majority of new energy.

Coal is a loooong way from dead. Now if they can just bring the cost of alternative sources into the competitive range and beef up the reliability, they'll continue making strides.

Wind and solar are already competitive with coal and utilities are actively switching over because they see it as an alternative to being held hostage by the fossil fuel industry.

The cost of oil, natural gas and coal fluctuate but the cost of the wind and the sun remain constant at zero.

 

[hadit]

Renewable Energy = 90% Of New US Electricity Generation Capacity In January (Exclusive)
March 10th, 2015 by Zachary Shahan

Based on data from FERC and educated “other solar” (essentially rooftop solar) estimates from CleanTechnica, we’ve found that 90% of new electricity generation capacity added in the United States in January 2015 came from renewable energy sources. To be more precise, 90% came from solar and wind energy.

The largest source of new capacity came from wind energy (54.7%), rooftop solar was second (26.7%), natural gas was third (10.5%), and utility-scale solar PV brought the rest (8.1%).

Renewables did very well in January 2014 as well. Solar and wind accounted for 94%, while all renewables accounted for 99.9%.

For all of 2014, solar and wind energy accounted for 55% of new US electricity generation capacity, while all renewables together accounted for 57% of new US electricity generation capacity. Natural gas accounted for 42%, coal accounted for 0.6%, nuclear for 0.4%, and oil for 0.3%.

Of course, it’s great to see renewables accounting for the majority of electricity generation capacity growth. Comparing new capacity to cumulative installed capacity (essentially, every power plant in the US that can produce electricity), a couple of key points come out:

• Renewables are still a small portion of our electricity mix. (Wind = 5.6% and solar = 1.4%, together coming to 7%. All renewables combined = 17.2%.)
• The trend is very clearly toward renewables.

Coals dead!!! Wind and solar makes up the majority of new energy.

Coal is a loooong way from dead. Now if they can just bring the cost of alternative sources into the competitive range and beef up the reliability, they'll continue making strides.

Wind and solar are already competitive with coal and utilities are actively switching over because they see it as an alternative to being held hostage by the fossil fuel industry.

The cost of oil, natural gas and coal fluctuate but the cost of the wind and the sun remain constant at zero.

How much of that competitiveness is due to federal subsidies?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Renewable Energy = 90% Of New US Electricity Generation Capacity In January (Exclusive)
March 10th, 2015 by Zachary Shahan

Based on data from FERC and educated “other solar” (essentially rooftop solar) estimates from CleanTechnica, we’ve found that 90% of new electricity generation capacity added in the United States in January 2015 came from renewable energy sources. To be more precise, 90% came from solar and wind energy.

The largest source of new capacity came from wind energy (54.7%), rooftop solar was second (26.7%), natural gas was third (10.5%), and utility-scale solar PV brought the rest (8.1%).

Renewables did very well in January 2014 as well. Solar and wind accounted for 94%, while all renewables accounted for 99.9%.

For all of 2014, solar and wind energy accounted for 55% of new US electricity generation capacity, while all renewables together accounted for 57% of new US electricity generation capacity. Natural gas accounted for 42%, coal accounted for 0.6%, nuclear for 0.4%, and oil for 0.3%.

Of course, it’s great to see renewables accounting for the majority of electricity generation capacity growth. Comparing new capacity to cumulative installed capacity (essentially, every power plant in the US that can produce electricity), a couple of key points come out:

• Renewables are still a small portion of our electricity mix. (Wind = 5.6% and solar = 1.4%, together coming to 7%. All renewables combined = 17.2%.)
• The trend is very clearly toward renewables.

Coals dead!!! Wind and solar makes up the majority of new energy.

Coal is a loooong way from dead. Now if they can just bring the cost of alternative sources into the competitive range and beef up the reliability, they'll continue making strides.

Wind and solar are already competitive with coal and utilities are actively switching over because they see it as an alternative to being held hostage by the fossil fuel industry.

The cost of oil, natural gas and coal fluctuate but the cost of the wind and the sun remain constant at zero.

How much of that competitiveness is due to federal subsidies?

Fossil fuels and nuclear energy are also heavily subsidized by the federal government, even more so than wind and solar.

Even with massive subsidies renewable energy technology cannot survive. Renewables have been getting subsidies for years now they should be able to stand on their own. Energy Fact Check

• • In cumulative dollar amounts, over the lifetimes of their respective subsidies, the oil, coal, gas and nuclear industries have received approximately $630 billion in U.S. government subsidies, while wind, solar, biofuels and other renewable sectors have received a total of roughly $50 billion in government investments. (DBL Investors,http://bit.ly/uV14lf)
  • The federal government has subsidized traditional energy technologies for more than 60 years before supporting renewable energy. A recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report notes: “From 1916 to the 1970s, federal energy-related tax policy focused almost exclusively on increasing the production of domestic oil and natural gas; there were no tax incentives for promoting renewable energy or increasing energy efficiency.” (Source: CBO,http://1.usa.gov/H1XKkB)
  • Tax preferences for traditional energy outweighed those for renewable energy through 2007. “[T]ax preferences for fossil fuels continued to make up the bulk of all energy-related tax incentives through 2007, typically accounting for more than two-thirds of the total cost.” (Source: CBO,http://1.usa.gov/H1XKkB)
  • To put this in perspective, consider a recent, comprehensive study from venture capital firm DBL Investors that found that the “federal commitment to [oil and gas] was five times greater than the federal commitment to renewables during the first 15 years of each subsidy’s life, and it was more than 10 times greater for nuclear.” (DBL Investors, http://bit.ly/uV14lf)

Energy subsidies - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

A 2011 study by the consulting firm Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI)[20] estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950–2010. The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period. Oil, natural gas, and coal benefited most from percentage depletion allowances and other tax-based subsidies, but oil also benefited heavily from regulatory subsidies such as exemptions from price controls and higher-than-average rates of return allowed on oil pipelines. The MISI report found that non-hydro renewable energy (primarily wind and solar) benefited from $74 billion in federal subsidies, or 9% of the total, largely in the form of tax policy and direct federal expenditures on research and development (R&D). Nuclear power benefited from $73 billion in federal subsidies, 9% of the total, largely in the form of R&D, while hydro power received $90 billion in federal subsidies, 12% of the total.
​

The federal government has always subsidized new technologies.

Remove all subsidies and the odds are that renewables would be the clear winners because they don't create pollution and waste that costs a lot to dispose of and store.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0

In Texas, Austin Energy signed a deal this spring for 20 years of output from a solar farm at less than 5 cents a kilowatt-hour. In September, the Grand River Dam Authority in Oklahoma announced its approval of a new agreement to buy power from a new wind farm expected to be completed next year. Grand River estimated the deal would save its customers roughly $50 million from the project.

And, also in Oklahoma, American Electric Power ended up tripling the amount of wind power it had originally sought after seeing how low the bids came in last year.

“Wind was on sale — it was a Blue Light Special,” said Jay Godfrey, managing director of renewable energy for the company. He noted that Oklahoma, unlike many states, did not require utilities to buy power from renewable sources.

“We were doing it because it made sense for our ratepayers,” he said.

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

Without subsidies, wind comes in at about half of the cost of dirty coal, and solar only about a half cent a kilowatt more than dirty coal. And the price of solar is falling as we post.

The switch to renewables is going to be made on the basis of economics, not politics. Although, one might note that President Obama has won his bet on the his support of renewables.

 

[hadit]

Renewable Energy = 90% Of New US Electricity Generation Capacity In January (Exclusive)
March 10th, 2015 by Zachary Shahan

Based on data from FERC and educated “other solar” (essentially rooftop solar) estimates from CleanTechnica, we’ve found that 90% of new electricity generation capacity added in the United States in January 2015 came from renewable energy sources. To be more precise, 90% came from solar and wind energy.

The largest source of new capacity came from wind energy (54.7%), rooftop solar was second (26.7%), natural gas was third (10.5%), and utility-scale solar PV brought the rest (8.1%).

Renewables did very well in January 2014 as well. Solar and wind accounted for 94%, while all renewables accounted for 99.9%.

For all of 2014, solar and wind energy accounted for 55% of new US electricity generation capacity, while all renewables together accounted for 57% of new US electricity generation capacity. Natural gas accounted for 42%, coal accounted for 0.6%, nuclear for 0.4%, and oil for 0.3%.

Of course, it’s great to see renewables accounting for the majority of electricity generation capacity growth. Comparing new capacity to cumulative installed capacity (essentially, every power plant in the US that can produce electricity), a couple of key points come out:

• Renewables are still a small portion of our electricity mix. (Wind = 5.6% and solar = 1.4%, together coming to 7%. All renewables combined = 17.2%.)
• The trend is very clearly toward renewables.

Coals dead!!! Wind and solar makes up the majority of new energy.

Coal is a loooong way from dead. Now if they can just bring the cost of alternative sources into the competitive range and beef up the reliability, they'll continue making strides.

Wind and solar are already competitive with coal and utilities are actively switching over because they see it as an alternative to being held hostage by the fossil fuel industry.

The cost of oil, natural gas and coal fluctuate but the cost of the wind and the sun remain constant at zero.

How much of that competitiveness is due to federal subsidies?

Fossil fuels and nuclear energy are also heavily subsidized by the federal government, even more so than wind and solar.

Even with massive subsidies renewable energy technology cannot survive. Renewables have been getting subsidies for years now they should be able to stand on their own. Energy Fact Check

• • In cumulative dollar amounts, over the lifetimes of their respective subsidies, the oil, coal, gas and nuclear industries have received approximately $630 billion in U.S. government subsidies, while wind, solar, biofuels and other renewable sectors have received a total of roughly $50 billion in government investments. (DBL Investors,http://bit.ly/uV14lf)
  • The federal government has subsidized traditional energy technologies for more than 60 years before supporting renewable energy. A recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report notes: “From 1916 to the 1970s, federal energy-related tax policy focused almost exclusively on increasing the production of domestic oil and natural gas; there were no tax incentives for promoting renewable energy or increasing energy efficiency.” (Source: CBO,http://1.usa.gov/H1XKkB)
  • Tax preferences for traditional energy outweighed those for renewable energy through 2007. “[T]ax preferences for fossil fuels continued to make up the bulk of all energy-related tax incentives through 2007, typically accounting for more than two-thirds of the total cost.” (Source: CBO,http://1.usa.gov/H1XKkB)
  • To put this in perspective, consider a recent, comprehensive study from venture capital firm DBL Investors that found that the “federal commitment to [oil and gas] was five times greater than the federal commitment to renewables during the first 15 years of each subsidy’s life, and it was more than 10 times greater for nuclear.” (DBL Investors, http://bit.ly/uV14lf)

Energy subsidies - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

A 2011 study by the consulting firm Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI)[20] estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950–2010. The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period. Oil, natural gas, and coal benefited most from percentage depletion allowances and other tax-based subsidies, but oil also benefited heavily from regulatory subsidies such as exemptions from price controls and higher-than-average rates of return allowed on oil pipelines. The MISI report found that non-hydro renewable energy (primarily wind and solar) benefited from $74 billion in federal subsidies, or 9% of the total, largely in the form of tax policy and direct federal expenditures on research and development (R&D). Nuclear power benefited from $73 billion in federal subsidies, 9% of the total, largely in the form of R&D, while hydro power received $90 billion in federal subsidies, 12% of the total.
​

The federal government has always subsidized new technologies.

Remove all subsidies and the odds are that renewables would be the clear winners because they don't create pollution and waste that costs a lot to dispose of and store.

Actually, no, because neither is reliable and energy storage technology is not up to the task yet. Cloudy days and lack of wind mean no power.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Renewable Energy = 90% Of New US Electricity Generation Capacity In January (Exclusive)
March 10th, 2015 by Zachary Shahan

Based on data from FERC and educated “other solar” (essentially rooftop solar) estimates from CleanTechnica, we’ve found that 90% of new electricity generation capacity added in the United States in January 2015 came from renewable energy sources. To be more precise, 90% came from solar and wind energy.

The largest source of new capacity came from wind energy (54.7%), rooftop solar was second (26.7%), natural gas was third (10.5%), and utility-scale solar PV brought the rest (8.1%).

Renewables did very well in January 2014 as well. Solar and wind accounted for 94%, while all renewables accounted for 99.9%.

For all of 2014, solar and wind energy accounted for 55% of new US electricity generation capacity, while all renewables together accounted for 57% of new US electricity generation capacity. Natural gas accounted for 42%, coal accounted for 0.6%, nuclear for 0.4%, and oil for 0.3%.

Of course, it’s great to see renewables accounting for the majority of electricity generation capacity growth. Comparing new capacity to cumulative installed capacity (essentially, every power plant in the US that can produce electricity), a couple of key points come out:

• Renewables are still a small portion of our electricity mix. (Wind = 5.6% and solar = 1.4%, together coming to 7%. All renewables combined = 17.2%.)
• The trend is very clearly toward renewables.

Coals dead!!! Wind and solar makes up the majority of new energy.

Not sure what else you'd expect when dems have pretty much banned the building of any other kind of power plant.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Renewable Energy = 90% Of New US Electricity Generation Capacity In January (Exclusive)
March 10th, 2015 by Zachary Shahan




Coals dead!!! Wind and solar makes up the majority of new energy.

Coal is a loooong way from dead. Now if they can just bring the cost of alternative sources into the competitive range and beef up the reliability, they'll continue making strides.

Wind and solar are already competitive with coal and utilities are actively switching over because they see it as an alternative to being held hostage by the fossil fuel industry.

The cost of oil, natural gas and coal fluctuate but the cost of the wind and the sun remain constant at zero.

How much of that competitiveness is due to federal subsidies?

Fossil fuels and nuclear energy are also heavily subsidized by the federal government, even more so than wind and solar.

Even with massive subsidies renewable energy technology cannot survive. Renewables have been getting subsidies for years now they should be able to stand on their own. Energy Fact Check

• • In cumulative dollar amounts, over the lifetimes of their respective subsidies, the oil, coal, gas and nuclear industries have received approximately $630 billion in U.S. government subsidies, while wind, solar, biofuels and other renewable sectors have received a total of roughly $50 billion in government investments. (DBL Investors,http://bit.ly/uV14lf)
  • The federal government has subsidized traditional energy technologies for more than 60 years before supporting renewable energy. A recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report notes: “From 1916 to the 1970s, federal energy-related tax policy focused almost exclusively on increasing the production of domestic oil and natural gas; there were no tax incentives for promoting renewable energy or increasing energy efficiency.” (Source: CBO,http://1.usa.gov/H1XKkB)
  • Tax preferences for traditional energy outweighed those for renewable energy through 2007. “[T]ax preferences for fossil fuels continued to make up the bulk of all energy-related tax incentives through 2007, typically accounting for more than two-thirds of the total cost.” (Source: CBO,http://1.usa.gov/H1XKkB)
  • To put this in perspective, consider a recent, comprehensive study from venture capital firm DBL Investors that found that the “federal commitment to [oil and gas] was five times greater than the federal commitment to renewables during the first 15 years of each subsidy’s life, and it was more than 10 times greater for nuclear.” (DBL Investors, http://bit.ly/uV14lf)

Energy subsidies - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

A 2011 study by the consulting firm Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI)[20] estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950–2010. The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period. Oil, natural gas, and coal benefited most from percentage depletion allowances and other tax-based subsidies, but oil also benefited heavily from regulatory subsidies such as exemptions from price controls and higher-than-average rates of return allowed on oil pipelines. The MISI report found that non-hydro renewable energy (primarily wind and solar) benefited from $74 billion in federal subsidies, or 9% of the total, largely in the form of tax policy and direct federal expenditures on research and development (R&D). Nuclear power benefited from $73 billion in federal subsidies, 9% of the total, largely in the form of R&D, while hydro power received $90 billion in federal subsidies, 12% of the total.
​

The federal government has always subsidized new technologies.

Remove all subsidies and the odds are that renewables would be the clear winners because they don't create pollution and waste that costs a lot to dispose of and store.

Actually, no, because neither is reliable and energy storage technology is not up to the task yet. Cloudy days and lack of wind mean no power.

It isn't cloudy everywhere and the wind is always blowing somewhere. Oh, and yes, solar works on cloudy days too.

We have a power GRID for a reason. Your local coal fired plant could be shut down for maintenance or a breakdown and it makes no difference to your supply because the slack is picked up elsewhere. Same applies to wind and solar. When the sun sets in NYC there are still 3 hours of daylight in LA. The wind might not be blowing on the gulf coast but is doing just fine in Texas or Michigan.

 

[hadit]

Coal is a loooong way from dead. Now if they can just bring the cost of alternative sources into the competitive range and beef up the reliability, they'll continue making strides.

Wind and solar are already competitive with coal and utilities are actively switching over because they see it as an alternative to being held hostage by the fossil fuel industry.

The cost of oil, natural gas and coal fluctuate but the cost of the wind and the sun remain constant at zero.

How much of that competitiveness is due to federal subsidies?

Fossil fuels and nuclear energy are also heavily subsidized by the federal government, even more so than wind and solar.

Even with massive subsidies renewable energy technology cannot survive. Renewables have been getting subsidies for years now they should be able to stand on their own. Energy Fact Check

• • In cumulative dollar amounts, over the lifetimes of their respective subsidies, the oil, coal, gas and nuclear industries have received approximately $630 billion in U.S. government subsidies, while wind, solar, biofuels and other renewable sectors have received a total of roughly $50 billion in government investments. (DBL Investors,http://bit.ly/uV14lf)
  • The federal government has subsidized traditional energy technologies for more than 60 years before supporting renewable energy. A recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report notes: “From 1916 to the 1970s, federal energy-related tax policy focused almost exclusively on increasing the production of domestic oil and natural gas; there were no tax incentives for promoting renewable energy or increasing energy efficiency.” (Source: CBO,http://1.usa.gov/H1XKkB)
  • Tax preferences for traditional energy outweighed those for renewable energy through 2007. “[T]ax preferences for fossil fuels continued to make up the bulk of all energy-related tax incentives through 2007, typically accounting for more than two-thirds of the total cost.” (Source: CBO,http://1.usa.gov/H1XKkB)
  • To put this in perspective, consider a recent, comprehensive study from venture capital firm DBL Investors that found that the “federal commitment to [oil and gas] was five times greater than the federal commitment to renewables during the first 15 years of each subsidy’s life, and it was more than 10 times greater for nuclear.” (DBL Investors, http://bit.ly/uV14lf)

Energy subsidies - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

A 2011 study by the consulting firm Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI)[20] estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950–2010. The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period. Oil, natural gas, and coal benefited most from percentage depletion allowances and other tax-based subsidies, but oil also benefited heavily from regulatory subsidies such as exemptions from price controls and higher-than-average rates of return allowed on oil pipelines. The MISI report found that non-hydro renewable energy (primarily wind and solar) benefited from $74 billion in federal subsidies, or 9% of the total, largely in the form of tax policy and direct federal expenditures on research and development (R&D). Nuclear power benefited from $73 billion in federal subsidies, 9% of the total, largely in the form of R&D, while hydro power received $90 billion in federal subsidies, 12% of the total.
​

The federal government has always subsidized new technologies.

Remove all subsidies and the odds are that renewables would be the clear winners because they don't create pollution and waste that costs a lot to dispose of and store.

Actually, no, because neither is reliable and energy storage technology is not up to the task yet. Cloudy days and lack of wind mean no power.

It isn't cloudy everywhere and the wind is always blowing somewhere. Oh, and yes, solar works on cloudy days too.

We have a power GRID for a reason. Your local coal fired plant could be shut down for maintenance or a breakdown and it makes no difference to your supply because the slack is picked up elsewhere. Same applies to wind and solar. When the sun sets in NYC there are still 3 hours of daylight in LA. The wind might not be blowing on the gulf coast but is doing just fine in Texas or Michigan.

Sure, and there are days where most of the continent is blanketed in clouds, and you can't put enough windmills everywhere to compensate for the sporadic nature of wind. You're still going to need coal or oil fired plants for quite a while to provide continuous, reliable power.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Wind and solar are already competitive with coal and utilities are actively switching over because they see it as an alternative to being held hostage by the fossil fuel industry.

The cost of oil, natural gas and coal fluctuate but the cost of the wind and the sun remain constant at zero.

How much of that competitiveness is due to federal subsidies?

Fossil fuels and nuclear energy are also heavily subsidized by the federal government, even more so than wind and solar.

Even with massive subsidies renewable energy technology cannot survive. Renewables have been getting subsidies for years now they should be able to stand on their own. Energy Fact Check

• • In cumulative dollar amounts, over the lifetimes of their respective subsidies, the oil, coal, gas and nuclear industries have received approximately $630 billion in U.S. government subsidies, while wind, solar, biofuels and other renewable sectors have received a total of roughly $50 billion in government investments. (DBL Investors,http://bit.ly/uV14lf)
  • The federal government has subsidized traditional energy technologies for more than 60 years before supporting renewable energy. A recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report notes: “From 1916 to the 1970s, federal energy-related tax policy focused almost exclusively on increasing the production of domestic oil and natural gas; there were no tax incentives for promoting renewable energy or increasing energy efficiency.” (Source: CBO,http://1.usa.gov/H1XKkB)
  • Tax preferences for traditional energy outweighed those for renewable energy through 2007. “[T]ax preferences for fossil fuels continued to make up the bulk of all energy-related tax incentives through 2007, typically accounting for more than two-thirds of the total cost.” (Source: CBO,http://1.usa.gov/H1XKkB)
  • To put this in perspective, consider a recent, comprehensive study from venture capital firm DBL Investors that found that the “federal commitment to [oil and gas] was five times greater than the federal commitment to renewables during the first 15 years of each subsidy’s life, and it was more than 10 times greater for nuclear.” (DBL Investors, http://bit.ly/uV14lf)

Energy subsidies - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

A 2011 study by the consulting firm Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI)[20] estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950–2010. The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period. Oil, natural gas, and coal benefited most from percentage depletion allowances and other tax-based subsidies, but oil also benefited heavily from regulatory subsidies such as exemptions from price controls and higher-than-average rates of return allowed on oil pipelines. The MISI report found that non-hydro renewable energy (primarily wind and solar) benefited from $74 billion in federal subsidies, or 9% of the total, largely in the form of tax policy and direct federal expenditures on research and development (R&D). Nuclear power benefited from $73 billion in federal subsidies, 9% of the total, largely in the form of R&D, while hydro power received $90 billion in federal subsidies, 12% of the total.
​

The federal government has always subsidized new technologies.

Remove all subsidies and the odds are that renewables would be the clear winners because they don't create pollution and waste that costs a lot to dispose of and store.

Actually, no, because neither is reliable and energy storage technology is not up to the task yet. Cloudy days and lack of wind mean no power.

It isn't cloudy everywhere and the wind is always blowing somewhere. Oh, and yes, solar works on cloudy days too.

We have a power GRID for a reason. Your local coal fired plant could be shut down for maintenance or a breakdown and it makes no difference to your supply because the slack is picked up elsewhere. Same applies to wind and solar. When the sun sets in NYC there are still 3 hours of daylight in LA. The wind might not be blowing on the gulf coast but is doing just fine in Texas or Michigan.

Sure, and there are days where most of the continent is blanketed in clouds, and you can't put enough windmills everywhere to compensate for the sporadic nature of wind. You're still going to need coal or oil fired plants for quite a while to provide continuous, reliable power.

There are 46 countries that obtain 60% plus of their energy needs from renewables.

Over 60 renewable electricity country list Lenz Blog

Nicarugua will be 97% renewable by 2017.

Oh, and windmills alone could generate 3 times the total current needs of the entire world.

 

[BullKurtz]

Wind and solar are already competitive with coal and utilities are actively switching over because they see it as an alternative to being held hostage by the fossil fuel industry.

The cost of oil, natural gas and coal fluctuate but the cost of the wind and the sun remain constant at zero.

Total CRAP.....coal isn't a "fossil fuel" and neither is oil and oil is not a source for electric power generation. Solar is dependent on environmentally destructive batteries and is dropping like a stone in new investment capital. It's a joke same as you, punk.. Find your MOS yet?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Things only get better for solar!

US PV Installations Predicted To Pass 8 GW, Say GTM & SEIA
US PV Installations Predicted To Pass 8 GW Says GTM SEIA
March 11th, 2015 by Joshua S Hill

GTM Research and the Solar Energy Industries Association are predicting another strong year for the US PV market in 2015, with installations expected to reach over 8 GW.

Concluding their US Solar Market Insight, 2014 Year-in-Review report, the authors from GTM Research and the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) predict that installations will increase 31% in 2015, reaching 8.1 GW by the end of the year, with fastest growth coming from the residential sector. Non-residential solar will fit in second, with utility PV expected to be the grow the slowest compared to 2014, but still accounting for 59% of all installations brought online throughout 2015.

2015 and 2016 are the last years set to take advantage of the 30% federal investment tax credit (ITC), which is scheduled to drop to 10% for commercial projects under section 48 of the tax code, while the credit will expire entirely for individuals under section 25d. “Businesses across the solar energy industry have begun preparing for the worst while hoping for the best,” write the authors of the report.

Subsequently, 2015 and 2016 are predicted to be big, with solar business trying “to bring as much capacity online as possible before the scheduled stepdown.”

 

[Derideo_Te]

coal isn't a "fossil fuel" and neither is oil

Fossil fuel Define Fossil fuel at Dictionary.com

fossil fuel
noun, Energy.
1.
any combustible organic material, as oil, coal, or natural gas, derived from the remains of former life.

What an ignorant buffoon!

 

[Statistikhengst]

Total CRAP.....coal isn't a "fossil fuel" and neither is oil and oil is not a source for electric power generation. Solar is dependent on environmentally destructive batteries and is dropping like a stone in new investment capital. It's a joke same as you, punk.. Find your MOS yet?

Coal - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"Coal (from the Old English term col, which has meant "mineral of fossilized carbon" since the 13th century)[1] is a combustible black or brownish-black sedimentary rock usually occurring inrock strata in layers or veins called coal beds or coal seams. The harder forms, such asanthracite coal, can be regarded as metamorphic rock because of later exposure to elevated temperature and pressure. Coal is composed primarily of carbon along with variable quantities of other elements, chiefly hydrogen, sulfur, oxygen, and nitrogen.[2]

Throughout history, coal has been used as an energy resource, primarily burned for the production of electricity and/or heat, and is also used for industrial purposes, such as refining metals. A fossil fuel, coal forms when dead plant matter is converted into peat, which in turn is converted into lignite, then sub-bituminous coal, after that bituminous coal, and lastly anthracite. This involves biological and geological processes that take place over a long period. TheEnergy Information Administration estimates coal reserves at 948×109 short tons (860 Gt).[3]One estimate for resources is 18 000 Gt.[4]

Coal is the largest source of energy for the generation of electricity worldwide, as well as one of the largest worldwide anthropogenic sources of carbon dioxide releases. ..."


Petroleum - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"Petroleum (L. petroleum, from early 15c. "petroleum, rock oil" (mid-14c. in Anglo-French), from Medieval Latin petroleum, from Latin: petra: "rock" + oleum: "oil".[1][2][3]) is a naturally occurring, yellow-to-blackliquid found in geological formations beneath the Earth's surface, which is commonly refined into various types of fuels.

It consists of hydrocarbons of various molecular weights and otherorganic compounds.[4] The name petroleum covers both naturally occurring unprocessed crude oil and petroleum products that are made up of refined crude oil. A fossil fuel, petroleum is formed when large quantities of dead organisms, usually zooplankton and algae, are buried underneath sedimentary rock and subjected to intense heat and pressure."

 

[BullKurtz]

Petroleum is an abiotic resource found far below where any plant of animal remains could exist and continuously refills what were thought to be exhausted wells. As to coal, it can hardly to called a "fossil fuel" because it is a basic foundation in the structure of the planet. Looks like you two queers are caught with your panties down again.

 

[westwall]

How much of that competitiveness is due to federal subsidies?

Fossil fuels and nuclear energy are also heavily subsidized by the federal government, even more so than wind and solar.

Even with massive subsidies renewable energy technology cannot survive. Renewables have been getting subsidies for years now they should be able to stand on their own. Energy Fact Check

• • In cumulative dollar amounts, over the lifetimes of their respective subsidies, the oil, coal, gas and nuclear industries have received approximately $630 billion in U.S. government subsidies, while wind, solar, biofuels and other renewable sectors have received a total of roughly $50 billion in government investments. (DBL Investors,http://bit.ly/uV14lf)
  • The federal government has subsidized traditional energy technologies for more than 60 years before supporting renewable energy. A recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report notes: “From 1916 to the 1970s, federal energy-related tax policy focused almost exclusively on increasing the production of domestic oil and natural gas; there were no tax incentives for promoting renewable energy or increasing energy efficiency.” (Source: CBO,http://1.usa.gov/H1XKkB)
  • Tax preferences for traditional energy outweighed those for renewable energy through 2007. “[T]ax preferences for fossil fuels continued to make up the bulk of all energy-related tax incentives through 2007, typically accounting for more than two-thirds of the total cost.” (Source: CBO,http://1.usa.gov/H1XKkB)
  • To put this in perspective, consider a recent, comprehensive study from venture capital firm DBL Investors that found that the “federal commitment to [oil and gas] was five times greater than the federal commitment to renewables during the first 15 years of each subsidy’s life, and it was more than 10 times greater for nuclear.” (DBL Investors, http://bit.ly/uV14lf)

Energy subsidies - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

A 2011 study by the consulting firm Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI)[20] estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950–2010. The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period. Oil, natural gas, and coal benefited most from percentage depletion allowances and other tax-based subsidies, but oil also benefited heavily from regulatory subsidies such as exemptions from price controls and higher-than-average rates of return allowed on oil pipelines. The MISI report found that non-hydro renewable energy (primarily wind and solar) benefited from $74 billion in federal subsidies, or 9% of the total, largely in the form of tax policy and direct federal expenditures on research and development (R&D). Nuclear power benefited from $73 billion in federal subsidies, 9% of the total, largely in the form of R&D, while hydro power received $90 billion in federal subsidies, 12% of the total.
​

The federal government has always subsidized new technologies.

Remove all subsidies and the odds are that renewables would be the clear winners because they don't create pollution and waste that costs a lot to dispose of and store.

Actually, no, because neither is reliable and energy storage technology is not up to the task yet. Cloudy days and lack of wind mean no power.

It isn't cloudy everywhere and the wind is always blowing somewhere. Oh, and yes, solar works on cloudy days too.

We have a power GRID for a reason. Your local coal fired plant could be shut down for maintenance or a breakdown and it makes no difference to your supply because the slack is picked up elsewhere. Same applies to wind and solar. When the sun sets in NYC there are still 3 hours of daylight in LA. The wind might not be blowing on the gulf coast but is doing just fine in Texas or Michigan.

Sure, and there are days where most of the continent is blanketed in clouds, and you can't put enough windmills everywhere to compensate for the sporadic nature of wind. You're still going to need coal or oil fired plants for quite a while to provide continuous, reliable power.

There are 46 countries that obtain 60% plus of their energy needs from renewables.

Over 60 renewable electricity country list Lenz Blog

Nicarugua will be 97% renewable by 2017.

Oh, and windmills alone could generate 3 times the total current needs of the entire world.

Did you bother to look at the SOURCE for all that renewable energy? Overwhelmingly hydroelectric.

 

[Old Rocks]

Petroleum is an abiotic resource found far below where any plant of animal remains could exist and continuously refills what were thought to be exhausted wells. As to coal, it can hardly to called a "fossil fuel" because it is a basic foundation in the structure of the planet. Looks like you two queers are caught with your panties down again.

Then why are we not getting billion barrel resovoirs in the basement rock? The Gold Hypothesis is, at very best, a very minor source of hydrocarbons. Care to flaunt your ignorance further?

 

[Old Rocks]

Fossil fuels and nuclear energy are also heavily subsidized by the federal government, even more so than wind and solar.

Even with massive subsidies renewable energy technology cannot survive. Renewables have been getting subsidies for years now they should be able to stand on their own. Energy Fact Check

• • In cumulative dollar amounts, over the lifetimes of their respective subsidies, the oil, coal, gas and nuclear industries have received approximately $630 billion in U.S. government subsidies, while wind, solar, biofuels and other renewable sectors have received a total of roughly $50 billion in government investments. (DBL Investors,http://bit.ly/uV14lf)
  • The federal government has subsidized traditional energy technologies for more than 60 years before supporting renewable energy. A recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report notes: “From 1916 to the 1970s, federal energy-related tax policy focused almost exclusively on increasing the production of domestic oil and natural gas; there were no tax incentives for promoting renewable energy or increasing energy efficiency.” (Source: CBO,http://1.usa.gov/H1XKkB)
  • Tax preferences for traditional energy outweighed those for renewable energy through 2007. “[T]ax preferences for fossil fuels continued to make up the bulk of all energy-related tax incentives through 2007, typically accounting for more than two-thirds of the total cost.” (Source: CBO,http://1.usa.gov/H1XKkB)
  • To put this in perspective, consider a recent, comprehensive study from venture capital firm DBL Investors that found that the “federal commitment to [oil and gas] was five times greater than the federal commitment to renewables during the first 15 years of each subsidy’s life, and it was more than 10 times greater for nuclear.” (DBL Investors, http://bit.ly/uV14lf)

Energy subsidies - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

A 2011 study by the consulting firm Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI)[20] estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950–2010. The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period. Oil, natural gas, and coal benefited most from percentage depletion allowances and other tax-based subsidies, but oil also benefited heavily from regulatory subsidies such as exemptions from price controls and higher-than-average rates of return allowed on oil pipelines. The MISI report found that non-hydro renewable energy (primarily wind and solar) benefited from $74 billion in federal subsidies, or 9% of the total, largely in the form of tax policy and direct federal expenditures on research and development (R&D). Nuclear power benefited from $73 billion in federal subsidies, 9% of the total, largely in the form of R&D, while hydro power received $90 billion in federal subsidies, 12% of the total.
​

The federal government has always subsidized new technologies.

Remove all subsidies and the odds are that renewables would be the clear winners because they don't create pollution and waste that costs a lot to dispose of and store.

Actually, no, because neither is reliable and energy storage technology is not up to the task yet. Cloudy days and lack of wind mean no power.

It isn't cloudy everywhere and the wind is always blowing somewhere. Oh, and yes, solar works on cloudy days too.

We have a power GRID for a reason. Your local coal fired plant could be shut down for maintenance or a breakdown and it makes no difference to your supply because the slack is picked up elsewhere. Same applies to wind and solar. When the sun sets in NYC there are still 3 hours of daylight in LA. The wind might not be blowing on the gulf coast but is doing just fine in Texas or Michigan.

Sure, and there are days where most of the continent is blanketed in clouds, and you can't put enough windmills everywhere to compensate for the sporadic nature of wind. You're still going to need coal or oil fired plants for quite a while to provide continuous, reliable power.

There are 46 countries that obtain 60% plus of their energy needs from renewables.

Over 60 renewable electricity country list Lenz Blog

Nicarugua will be 97% renewable by 2017.

Oh, and windmills alone could generate 3 times the total current needs of the entire world.

Did you bother to look at the SOURCE for all that renewable energy? Overwhelmingly hydroelectric.

OK. For 2014, 258,749 thousands of megawatt hours. For wind, 181,791, Wind increase about 8% from the prior year, hydro decreased about 4%.

Total renewable sources, excluding hydro, 281,060, up by about 10%

A scientist looks at the data before making a stupid statement.

EIA - Electricity Data

 

[hadit]

How much of that competitiveness is due to federal subsidies?

Fossil fuels and nuclear energy are also heavily subsidized by the federal government, even more so than wind and solar.

Even with massive subsidies renewable energy technology cannot survive. Renewables have been getting subsidies for years now they should be able to stand on their own. Energy Fact Check

• • In cumulative dollar amounts, over the lifetimes of their respective subsidies, the oil, coal, gas and nuclear industries have received approximately $630 billion in U.S. government subsidies, while wind, solar, biofuels and other renewable sectors have received a total of roughly $50 billion in government investments. (DBL Investors,http://bit.ly/uV14lf)
  • The federal government has subsidized traditional energy technologies for more than 60 years before supporting renewable energy. A recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report notes: “From 1916 to the 1970s, federal energy-related tax policy focused almost exclusively on increasing the production of domestic oil and natural gas; there were no tax incentives for promoting renewable energy or increasing energy efficiency.” (Source: CBO,http://1.usa.gov/H1XKkB)
  • Tax preferences for traditional energy outweighed those for renewable energy through 2007. “[T]ax preferences for fossil fuels continued to make up the bulk of all energy-related tax incentives through 2007, typically accounting for more than two-thirds of the total cost.” (Source: CBO,http://1.usa.gov/H1XKkB)
  • To put this in perspective, consider a recent, comprehensive study from venture capital firm DBL Investors that found that the “federal commitment to [oil and gas] was five times greater than the federal commitment to renewables during the first 15 years of each subsidy’s life, and it was more than 10 times greater for nuclear.” (DBL Investors, http://bit.ly/uV14lf)

Energy subsidies - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

A 2011 study by the consulting firm Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI)[20] estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950–2010. The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period. Oil, natural gas, and coal benefited most from percentage depletion allowances and other tax-based subsidies, but oil also benefited heavily from regulatory subsidies such as exemptions from price controls and higher-than-average rates of return allowed on oil pipelines. The MISI report found that non-hydro renewable energy (primarily wind and solar) benefited from $74 billion in federal subsidies, or 9% of the total, largely in the form of tax policy and direct federal expenditures on research and development (R&D). Nuclear power benefited from $73 billion in federal subsidies, 9% of the total, largely in the form of R&D, while hydro power received $90 billion in federal subsidies, 12% of the total.
​

The federal government has always subsidized new technologies.

Remove all subsidies and the odds are that renewables would be the clear winners because they don't create pollution and waste that costs a lot to dispose of and store.

Actually, no, because neither is reliable and energy storage technology is not up to the task yet. Cloudy days and lack of wind mean no power.

It isn't cloudy everywhere and the wind is always blowing somewhere. Oh, and yes, solar works on cloudy days too.

We have a power GRID for a reason. Your local coal fired plant could be shut down for maintenance or a breakdown and it makes no difference to your supply because the slack is picked up elsewhere. Same applies to wind and solar. When the sun sets in NYC there are still 3 hours of daylight in LA. The wind might not be blowing on the gulf coast but is doing just fine in Texas or Michigan.

Sure, and there are days where most of the continent is blanketed in clouds, and you can't put enough windmills everywhere to compensate for the sporadic nature of wind. You're still going to need coal or oil fired plants for quite a while to provide continuous, reliable power.

There are 46 countries that obtain 60% plus of their energy needs from renewables.

Over 60 renewable electricity country list Lenz Blog

Nicarugua will be 97% renewable by 2017.

Oh, and windmills alone could generate 3 times the total current needs of the entire world.

Renewable in general, or wind and solar? It's very unlikely that the eco-freaks will allow any new major dams to be built in this country to generate hydro-electric power. Like I said, anything that looks to replace coal and oil as sources of energy has to be reliable, or energy storage has to become a whole lot more efficient.