The Green Energy buble is bursting fast, everywhere

[Quantum Windbag]

Drilling offshore of Alaska.

Item: In an extremely curious New York Times story last week, Times environmental writer John Broder notes that President Obama pushed hard for the final approval of Shell Oil’s long sought permit to begin drilling in a new offshore oil field in Alaska, which has been held up for years by bureaucratic red tape and environmental lawsuits:

Obama not talking about climate change.

Item: Meanwhile, on the other side of the ledger, Obama has grown very quiet about climate change. He can spot a political loser from a Chicago mile away. He’s not attending the UN’s 20th anniversary of the Earth Summit that started the whole climate diplomacy circus. Twenty years ago the greens browbeat President Bush to attend, which he ultimately did. But the craven greens seem to be giving Obama a pass. As Roll Call reports:

Germany is talking about building coal fired power plants.

Item: It’s not just here that the left-leaning party is jumping in front of the fossil fuel parade. It’s happening in Germany, too, where the pledge to phase out nuclear power is looking increasingly unrealistic and where renewable energy subsidies are being cut sharply. That’s not enough: some leading Social Democrats have called for building . . . more coal-fired power plants (gasp)!

The Green Energy Bubble Is Bursting Fast Everywhere | Power Line

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ruz3vA0uP1c]Nat King Cole - The Party's Over - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Old Rocks]

Solar in the US has been growing at the rate of 70% annually for the last 5 years. Even if all subsidies are removed, the lowest predicted growth rate is 20% annually. Wish I had a bank account that would yeild those numbers. And wind has grown from about 2 gw just over a decade ago, to nearly 50gw at present. In several states the percentage of wind generated electricity is near or over 10%. That is significant.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Solar in the US has been growing at the rate of 70% annually for the last 5 years. Even if all subsidies are removed, the lowest predicted growth rate is 20% annually. Wish I had a bank account that would yeild those numbers. And wind has grown from about 2 gw just over a decade ago, to nearly 50gw at present. In several states the percentage of wind generated electricity is near or over 10%. That is significant.

How much of that is due to increased government subsidies in California?

 

[flacaltenn]

Solar in the US has been growing at the rate of 70% annually for the last 5 years. Even if all subsidies are removed, the lowest predicted growth rate is 20% annually. Wish I had a bank account that would yeild those numbers. And wind has grown from about 2 gw just over a decade ago, to nearly 50gw at present. In several states the percentage of wind generated electricity is near or over 10%. That is significant.

It's peak wind time.. And solar growth rate without subsidies would be tiny.


Go ahead, buy a solar ETF they're real cheap right now... Lemme know when you're in so we can track it together. I'm all in on NLR, a nuclear ETF.. Let's see who rides out this decade in better shape...

 

[flacaltenn]

<Q.W>

It's all hands on deck time.. Expect to see a massive final push for more wind, solar.. Then the adults can decide what a real energy policy is gonna be..

 

[Middleoftheroad]

Solar in the US has been growing at the rate of 70% annually for the last 5 years. Even if all subsidies are removed, the lowest predicted growth rate is 20% annually. Wish I had a bank account that would yeild those numbers. And wind has grown from about 2 gw just over a decade ago, to nearly 50gw at present. In several states the percentage of wind generated electricity is near or over 10%. That is significant.

It's peak wind time.. And solar growth rate without subsidies would be tiny.


Go ahead, buy a solar ETF they're real cheap right now... Lemme know when you're in so we can track it together. I'm all in on NLR, a nuclear ETF.. Let's see who rides out this decade in better shape...

Are you expecting Nuclear to get cheaper for some reason? Its already more expensive then gas, hydro, coal and wind. I just don't really see the point of it anymore. As far as I can tell the battle is between cheap (gas) and green (wind), who supports Nuclear?

 

[flacaltenn]

Solar in the US has been growing at the rate of 70% annually for the last 5 years. Even if all subsidies are removed, the lowest predicted growth rate is 20% annually. Wish I had a bank account that would yeild those numbers. And wind has grown from about 2 gw just over a decade ago, to nearly 50gw at present. In several states the percentage of wind generated electricity is near or over 10%. That is significant.

It's peak wind time.. And solar growth rate without subsidies would be tiny.


Go ahead, buy a solar ETF they're real cheap right now... Lemme know when you're in so we can track it together. I'm all in on NLR, a nuclear ETF.. Let's see who rides out this decade in better shape...

Are you expecting Nuclear to get cheaper for some reason? Its already more expensive then gas, hydro, coal and wind. I just don't really see the point of it anymore. As far as I can tell the battle is between cheap (gas) and green (wind), who supports Nuclear?

Nuclear is the only 24/7 reliable source that will address Global Warming. With 100 new nuke plants we could

tear down the dams and free the salmon.

start closing coal plants which put more radioactivity into the air than any other source.

mitigate Global warming with a reliable NO Greenhouse gas technology.

have enough juice to really charge those EVs or make hydrogen for fuel cell cars.


Wind power is the worst source in terms of availability. Even the world's BEST wind farms lay quiet and juiceless about a day or more each week. Worse -- it can be generating at near peak right now and dead quiet 20 minutes from now. You cannot turn other sources on/off that quickly to compensate for the flakiness. So you need to running almost a full 100% backup to wind (like nat gas) because the grid cannot be overloaded by a wind spike nor can it store anything for a wind gap. Wind is NOT an alternative. It's a supplement at best. A monstrous pesky burden on the grid system operators at the worst.

What I've advocating for nuclear is to sponsor a "glow-off" between today's best nuclear designs. Put the prototypes waaay out into the Nevada proving grounds and test them until they are near breaking. Once they are certified in this fast (maybe 4 yr period) then the best designs that survive the testing phase can be fielded quickly with accelerated approvals. Nuclear CAN be proven to be much safer today than our 30+ yr old plants.

 

[bobgnote]

Except nuclear power is always abused by profiteers, who cannot or refuse to design proper core media or cooling systems.

Nuclear is just another game in the way of biomass, to minimize emissions, and re-greening, to counter emissions. We don't have the capital, for 100 new nuclear plants, and we don't have the people, who are smart enough to design or manage them, indefinitely.

Scratch a nuker, find some guy who wants to cut the population, to 500 million, from 7 billion. Trying to jump from oil to nukes, neatly, is one way to suddenly lower the population. Failing to re-green is another. Putting nukes in the hands of people, who cannot fathom climate change, via hockey stick models is suicidal. If you pronounce it, 'nukuler,' you are too stupid to manage it.

 

[flacaltenn]

Except nuclear power is always abused by profiteers, who cannot or refuse to design proper core media or cooling systems.

Nuclear is just another game in the way of biomass, to minimize emissions, and re-greening, to counter emissions. We don't have the capital, for 100 new nuclear plants, and we don't have the people, who are smart enough to design or manage them, indefinitely.

Scratch a nuker, find some guy who wants to cut the population, to 500 million, from 7 billion. Trying to jump from oil to nukes, neatly, is one way to suddenly lower the population. Failing to re-green is another. Putting nukes in the hands of people, who cannot fathom climate change, via hockey stick models is suicidal. If you pronounce it, 'nukuler,' you are too stupid to manage it.

Got it wrong stoner.. We're not the folks that want to sterilize people. That would be your kissing cousins the Communists and the Progressives and the Green Party Zero Pop Growth crowd.. Those losers are now related to right-wing Population control nuts like NumbersUSA.

Except nuclear power is always abused by profiteers, who cannot or refuse to design proper core media or cooling systems.

Yeah -- tell that to the NAVY whose flagships and submarines ALL live long healthy nuclear lives...

Nuclear is just another game in the way of biomass, to minimize emissions, and re-greening, to counter emissions. We don't have the capital, for 100 new nuclear plants, and we don't have the people, who are smart enough to design or manage them, indefinitely.

No ---> Nuclear is a TRUELY CO2 free power source. And close to as little waste per household as you could ever imagine. And don't you worry about the capital.. The adults will handle that part. I know it's hard for you to comprehend but capital is not zero sum. If you assist economic growth by making energy PLENTIFUL and CHEAP, by magic, more capital appears.. Presto--- Wantaseemepullarabbitoutofmyhat Rockey?

 

[Douger]

Not in my hood, it aint.

 

[bobgnote]

Scratch a nuker, find some guy who wants to cut the population, to 500 million, from 7 billion. Trying to jump from oil to nukes, neatly, is one way to suddenly lower the population. Failing to re-green is another. Putting nukes in the hands of people, who cannot fathom climate change, via hockey stick models is suicidal. If you pronounce it, 'nukuler,' you are too stupid to manage it.

Got it wrong stoner.. We're not the folks that want to sterilize people. That would be your kissing cousins the Communists and the Progressives and the Green Party Zero Pop Growth crowd.. Those losers are now related to right-wing Population control nuts like NumbersUSA.

Except nuclear power is always abused by profiteers, who cannot or refuse to design proper core media or cooling systems.

Yeah -- tell that to the NAVY whose flagships and submarines ALL live long healthy nuclear lives...

Nuclear is just another game in the way of biomass, to minimize emissions, and re-greening, to counter emissions. We don't have the capital, for 100 new nuclear plants, and we don't have the people, who are smart enough to design or manage them, indefinitely.

No ---> Nuclear is a TRUELY CO2 free power source. And close to as little waste per household as you could ever imagine. And don't you worry about the capital.. The adults will handle that part. I know it's hard for you to comprehend but capital is not zero sum. If you assist economic growth by making energy PLENTIFUL and CHEAP, by magic, more capital appears.. Presto--- Wantaseemepullarabbitoutofmyhat Rockey?

Problem is, you are a goddamn moron, I know you are stupid, you know you are stupid, and since we both know you are uncomfortable with that, go ahead and admit on THIS thread, what you put up, elsewhere, how carbonic acid is a problem, even if you are still too stupid, to hit search and gather reports, about cold-water affinity, of carbonic acid.

One nuclear fuckup, and the site is trashed. Since we both know you are stupid, but you may try to pretend you are informed and scientific, let's say NO, to YOU managing anything, like nuclear devices, of any kind. Just say 'nukuler' and fuck off. BTW, I don't get stoned or drink. What if I knocked a girl up, and the kid was stupid, like you?

You'd think a stupid fuck like you, fathead would back up, from something that makes kids without skulls, hands, arms, legs, faces, eyes, etc. One mistake, and affected organisms are no longer viable. Since it took so long for you to admit to carbonic acid, and you still haven't done a damn search on the other thread, don't think I want YOU touching all our lives, with something as nasty, as a nuclear power plant. You suck!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Scratch a nuker, find some guy who wants to cut the population, to 500 million, from 7 billion. Trying to jump from oil to nukes, neatly, is one way to suddenly lower the population. Failing to re-green is another. Putting nukes in the hands of people, who cannot fathom climate change, via hockey stick models is suicidal. If you pronounce it, 'nukuler,' you are too stupid to manage it.

Got it wrong stoner.. We're not the folks that want to sterilize people. That would be your kissing cousins the Communists and the Progressives and the Green Party Zero Pop Growth crowd.. Those losers are now related to right-wing Population control nuts like NumbersUSA.



Yeah -- tell that to the NAVY whose flagships and submarines ALL live long healthy nuclear lives...

Nuclear is just another game in the way of biomass, to minimize emissions, and re-greening, to counter emissions. We don't have the capital, for 100 new nuclear plants, and we don't have the people, who are smart enough to design or manage them, indefinitely.

No ---> Nuclear is a TRUELY CO2 free power source. And close to as little waste per household as you could ever imagine. And don't you worry about the capital.. The adults will handle that part. I know it's hard for you to comprehend but capital is not zero sum. If you assist economic growth by making energy PLENTIFUL and CHEAP, by magic, more capital appears.. Presto--- Wantaseemepullarabbitoutofmyhat Rockey?

Problem is, you are a goddamn moron, I know you are stupid, you know you are stupid, and since we both know you are uncomfortable with that, go ahead and admit on THIS thread, what you put up, elsewhere, how carbonic acid is a problem, even if you are still too stupid, to hit search and gather reports, about cold-water affinity, of carbonic acid.

One nuclear fuckup, and the site is trashed. Since we both know you are stupid, but you may try to pretend you are informed and scientific, let's say NO, to YOU managing anything, like nuclear devices, of any kind. Just say 'nukuler' and fuck off. BTW, I don't get stoned or drink. What if I knocked a girl up, and the kid was stupid, like you?

You'd think a stupid fuck like you, fathead would back up, from something that makes kids without skulls, hands, arms, legs, faces, eyes, etc. One mistake, and affected organisms are no longer viable. Since it took so long for you to admit to carbonic acid, and you still haven't done a damn search on the other thread, don't think I want YOU touching all our lives, with something as nasty, as a nuclear power plant. You suck!

I was stationed on a nuclear ship when I was in the Navy, it is a lot safer than you think it is. The major problem with it right now is that fearmongers are preventing the industry from upgrading to newer plants that are even safer than the 1st generation reactors that you are worried about.

Don't worry though, I am gay, and stupid.

 

[flacaltenn]

I was stationed on a nuclear ship when I was in the Navy, it is a lot safer than you think it is. The major problem with it right now is that fearmongers are preventing the industry from upgrading to newer plants that are even safer than the 1st generation reactors that you are worried about.

Don't worry though, I am gay, and stupid.

I didn't know that.. I mean I KNEW the gay and stupid part, but I didn't know you served on a nuclear ship..

 

[whitehall]

If freaking solar technology was a viable source of energy the solar panel companies wouldn't be going bankrupt once taxpayer funding dried up.

 

[flacaltenn]

The green alternatives list has always been weak. The arguments for some of these technologies are strong -- but as SUPPLEMENTS to the electric grid -- not as ALTERNATIVES. And some of them are downright fraud -- see the biomass thread under Energy.

There's gonna be a reversal on Ethanol. Or at least a realization that there are limits to pushing MORE mandates and production.

Wind is gonna massacred for it's unreliability, sketchy performance, maintenance issues, even enviro siting issues. But solar is gonna survive in wide application.

Biomass is gone. Geothermal will be extremely limited by REAL enviro impact issues. TIdal is cute and useless. Hydro OUGHT to dissappear, but the deed is done and the environauts can blame themselves for it. Have I missed anything?

In reality the one that deserves research funding and mandates is Hydrogen generation. The greenies pulled a bait and switch on fuel cell technology with is FARRR superior to batteries. THey sold it on the basis of hydrogen fuels producing just water as a waste product and after 20 years, we're now seeing fuel cells relegated to Natural Gas as fuel. A FOSSIL FUEL!!! Need to take a 2nd look here. Hindenberg be damned. It would be cool to have a hydrogen fueled transport sector..

 

[Old Rocks]

No, biomass is alive and well as a minor supplement.

Wind is alive and thriving, and will continue to thrive. As the grid is improved, wind generation will be even a bigger factor. The wind may be still in one area, but it will certainly be blowing in another. According to the MIT study, geothermal will be a big factor in future generation as one of the base load sources.

Fuel cells simply have not lived up to there initial promise. The battery technology is developing far faster than the fuel cell technology. I like the idea of hydrogen generation as a storage mechanism for excess generation by wind and solar. It is a far from mature technology at present.

Hydrogen was not the problem with the Hindenburg. A hypergo paint job was the issue there.

 

[bobgnote]

I was stationed on a nuclear ship when I was in the Navy, it is a lot safer than you think it is. The major problem with it right now is that fearmongers are preventing the industry from upgrading to newer plants that are even safer than the 1st generation reactors that you are worried about.

Don't worry though, I am gay, and stupid.

As long as you know how we don't know anyone we want to play with nukes, we're good.

As soon as you want to start parading your plague out of the Log Cabin closet, get back. I don't think well, of freaks, who stop public agenda evolution, with their favorite punk.

When dealing with the Log Cabin tearoom, you never know when you are going to meet some freak: "Oh, let's smear slag on our wee-wees and see if they glow in the dark!" Keep that in the damn closet, birthers who don't like breeders except for reactors.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I was stationed on a nuclear ship when I was in the Navy, it is a lot safer than you think it is. The major problem with it right now is that fearmongers are preventing the industry from upgrading to newer plants that are even safer than the 1st generation reactors that you are worried about.

Don't worry though, I am gay, and stupid.

As long as you know how we don't know anyone we want to play with nukes, we're good.

As soon as you want to start parading your plague out of the Log Cabin closet, get back. I don't think well, of freaks, who stop public agenda evolution, with their favorite punk.

When dealing with the Log Cabin tearoom, you never know when you are going to meet some freak: "Oh, let's smear slag on our wee-wees and see if they glow in the dark!" Keep that in the damn closet, birthers who don't like breeders except for reactors.

 

[bobgnote]

Oh, wow. It's little, gay, sassy, green bubble-head, doing a razzy. How gay, and stupid.

Time to re-up this thread, Queen Bitchbag:

Ocean Acidification - What is Ocean Acidification? | NRDC

"Earth’s atmosphere isn’t the only victim of burning fossil fuels. About a quarter of all carbon dioxide emissions are absorbed by the earth’s oceans, where they’re having an impact that’s just starting to be understood.

Over the last decade, scientists have discovered that this excess CO2 is actually changing the chemistry of the sea and proving harmful for many forms of marine life. This process is known as ocean acidification.

A more acidic ocean could wipe out species, disrupt the food web and impact fishing, tourism and any other human endeavor that relies on the sea.

The change is happening fast -- and it will take fast action to slow or stop it. Over the last 250 years, oceans have absorbed 530 billion tons of CO2, triggering a 30 percent increase in ocean acidity.

Before people started burning coal and oil, ocean pH had been relatively stable for the previous 20 million years. But researchers predict that if carbon emissions continue at their current rate, ocean acidity will more than double by 2100.

The polar regions will be the first to experience changes. Projections show that the Southern Ocean around Antarctica will actually become corrosive by 2050.

The new chemical composition of our oceans is expected to harm a wide range of ocean life -- particularly creatures with shells. The resulting disruption to the ocean ecosystem could have a widespread ripple effect and further deplete already struggling fisheries worldwide.

Increased acidity reduces carbonate -- the mineral used to form the shells and skeletons of many shellfish and corals. The effect is similar to osteoporosis, slowing growth and making shells weaker. If pH levels drop enough, the shells will literally dissolve.

This process will not only harm some of our favorite seafood, such as lobster and mussels, but will also injure some species of smaller marine organisms -- things such as pteropods and coccolithophores.

You’ve probably never heard of them, but they form a vital part of the food web. If those smaller organisms are wiped out, the larger animals that feed on them could suffer, as well.

Disappearing Coral Reefs

Delicate corals may face an even greater risk than shellfish because they require very high levels of carbonate to build their skeletons.

Acidity slows reef-building, which could lower the resiliency of corals and lead to their erosion and eventual extinction. The “tipping point” for coral reefs could happen as soon as 2050.

Coral reefs serve as the home for many other forms of ocean life. Their disappearance would be akin to rainforests being wiped out worldwide. Such losses would reverberate throughout the marine environment and have profound social impacts, as well -- especially on the fishing and tourism industries.

The loss of coral reefs would also reduce the protection that they offer coastal communities against storms surges and hurricanes -- which might become more severe with warmer air and sea surface temperatures due to global warming.

What Can We Do About It?

Combating acidification requires reducing CO2 emissions and improving the health of the oceans. Creating marine protected areas (essentially national parks for the sea) and stopping destructive fishing practices would increase the resiliency of marine ecosystems and help them withstand acidification.

Evidence suggests that coral reefs in protected ocean reserves are less affected by global threats such as global warming and ocean acidification, demonstrating the power of ecosystem protection.

Ultimately, though, reducing the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed into the oceans may be the only way to halt acidification. The same strategies needed to fight global warming on land can also help in the seas."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Oh, wow. It's little, gay, sassy, green bubble-head, doing a razzy. How gay, and stupid.

Time to re-up this thread, Queen Bitchbag:

Ocean Acidification - What is Ocean Acidification? | NRDC

"Earth’s atmosphere isn’t the only victim of burning fossil fuels. About a quarter of all carbon dioxide emissions are absorbed by the earth’s oceans, where they’re having an impact that’s just starting to be understood.

Over the last decade, scientists have discovered that this excess CO2 is actually changing the chemistry of the sea and proving harmful for many forms of marine life. This process is known as ocean acidification.

A more acidic ocean could wipe out species, disrupt the food web and impact fishing, tourism and any other human endeavor that relies on the sea.

The change is happening fast -- and it will take fast action to slow or stop it. Over the last 250 years, oceans have absorbed 530 billion tons of CO2, triggering a 30 percent increase in ocean acidity.

Before people started burning coal and oil, ocean pH had been relatively stable for the previous 20 million years. But researchers predict that if carbon emissions continue at their current rate, ocean acidity will more than double by 2100.

The polar regions will be the first to experience changes. Projections show that the Southern Ocean around Antarctica will actually become corrosive by 2050.

The new chemical composition of our oceans is expected to harm a wide range of ocean life -- particularly creatures with shells. The resulting disruption to the ocean ecosystem could have a widespread ripple effect and further deplete already struggling fisheries worldwide.

Increased acidity reduces carbonate -- the mineral used to form the shells and skeletons of many shellfish and corals. The effect is similar to osteoporosis, slowing growth and making shells weaker. If pH levels drop enough, the shells will literally dissolve.

This process will not only harm some of our favorite seafood, such as lobster and mussels, but will also injure some species of smaller marine organisms -- things such as pteropods and coccolithophores.

You’ve probably never heard of them, but they form a vital part of the food web. If those smaller organisms are wiped out, the larger animals that feed on them could suffer, as well.

Disappearing Coral Reefs

Delicate corals may face an even greater risk than shellfish because they require very high levels of carbonate to build their skeletons.

Acidity slows reef-building, which could lower the resiliency of corals and lead to their erosion and eventual extinction. The “tipping point” for coral reefs could happen as soon as 2050.

Coral reefs serve as the home for many other forms of ocean life. Their disappearance would be akin to rainforests being wiped out worldwide. Such losses would reverberate throughout the marine environment and have profound social impacts, as well -- especially on the fishing and tourism industries.

The loss of coral reefs would also reduce the protection that they offer coastal communities against storms surges and hurricanes -- which might become more severe with warmer air and sea surface temperatures due to global warming.

What Can We Do About It?

Combating acidification requires reducing CO2 emissions and improving the health of the oceans. Creating marine protected areas (essentially national parks for the sea) and stopping destructive fishing practices would increase the resiliency of marine ecosystems and help them withstand acidification.

Evidence suggests that coral reefs in protected ocean reserves are less affected by global threats such as global warming and ocean acidification, demonstrating the power of ecosystem protection.

Ultimately, though, reducing the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed into the oceans may be the only way to halt acidification. The same strategies needed to fight global warming on land can also help in the seas."