"Green Energy" policies screw the poor!!!

[skookerasbil]

More k00k losing.


Most people think green is good but pay little attention to associated increases in costs. In 2015, it will cost between $49 and $79 to generate one megawatt hour of electricity from natural gas. A megawatt hour from onshore wind will cost between $75 and $138, and from solar photovoltaic will cost between $242 and $455.


How Obama


And they dont give a shit as long as their green fantasies are achieved. These people........they just dont get it. How ironic too........the poor getting poorer on the back of the taxpayer = a clusterfuck.


So......all you people checking in on this forum trying to get a handle on the environment stuff? Careful what nutty-ass cause you embrace.........you may well be ******* over some poor people!!!

 

[Old Rocks]

If you own the solar photovoltiac, it will cost you nothing after you have finished the payback period. As the price of electricity just keeps going up, even in those areas that do not have renewable energy, the initial investment of the photovoltaic panels with decrease with relationship to the payback period. If one also purchases a vehicle that is a hybrid with a partial ev range, such as the Ford Energi C-Max, your payback period is diminished greatly.

 

[skookerasbil]

LOL.........yup.......these poor people have 30K, 40K, 50K to lay out and hope they live the almost 20 years before it becomes a smart investment.

Ray.........ya gotta be kidding me my friend. Even Obama said himself the pursuit of his policies are going to cost plenty in terms of electric costs.

Here is the graph from my link in Post #1..........its a no-brainer. Wind and Solar **** over the poor>>>>>

Wind and Solar are a joke. And funny...........since Obama took office, theyve gone directly down into the shitter!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, yes, it is. The earth is warming. The reason is GHGs produced by humans. The consequences are being felt right now in every grocery store.

As for obese junkies, who cares?

 

[flacaltenn]

If you own the solar photovoltiac, it will cost you nothing after you have finished the payback period. As the price of electricity just keeps going up, even in those areas that do not have renewable energy, the initial investment of the photovoltaic panels with decrease with relationship to the payback period. If one also purchases a vehicle that is a hybrid with a partial ev range, such as the Ford Energi C-Max, your payback period is diminished greatly.

So tell us O.R. how has YOUR paycheck investment in solar/wind panned out for you? Had to have the roof repaired recently? How's your insurance company with all this? Got good financing? Think poor people give a crap about all that?

Not only are rate payers gonna pay TWICE for the same KWhrs --- because wind is a BACKUP to the primary generator who is CONTRACTED to provide 100% of the expected load --- but likely --- there will soon be (with smart metering) severe penalties for exceeding your "average" or any other trigger they want to place out there. You thought hidden charges from your cable was bad --- just WAIT for "smart grid" crap to get slapped on your bungalow..

Those costs that were posted likely DON'T INCLUDE the costs of dumping nat gas/ coal energy into the ground every time the wind starts blowing.. It's ASTROMICALLY expensive to integrate statistically variable sources of energy onto a grid that HAS to maintain sync with INSTANTANEOUS demand..

 

[skookerasbil]

Well, yes, it is. The earth is warming. The reason is GHGs produced by humans. The consequences are being felt right now in every grocery store.

As for obese junkies, who cares?

Apparently.............the World Bank cares enough to write a white paper on the subject. Yuk........yuk.........now heres a group only a bonfide mental case would call partisan skeptics.


The title???



Investment decision making under deep uncertainty -- application to climate change


Investment decision making under deep uncertainty -- application to climate change


Author: Hallegatte, Stephane ; Shah, Ankur; Lempert, Robert; Brown, Casey; Gill, Stuart; Collection Title: Policy Research working paper ; no. WPS 6193
Country: World; Date Stored: 2012/09/06
Document Date: 2012/09/01 Document Type: Policy Research Working Paper
Language: English Region: The World Region
Report Number: WPS6193 SubTopics: Climate Change Economics; Climate Change Mitigation and Green House Gases; Global Environment Facility; Water Supply and Sanitation Governance and Institutions; Science of Climate Change
Volume No: 1 of 1


Summary: While agreeing on the choice of an optimal investment decision is already difficult for any diverse group of actors, priorities, and world views, the presence of deep uncertainties further challenges the decision-making framework by questioning the robustness of all purportedly optimal solutions. This paper summarizes the additional uncertainty that is created by climate change, and reviews the tools that are available to project climate change (including downscaling techniques) and to assess and quantify the corresponding uncertainty. Assuming that climate change and other deep uncertainties cannot be eliminated over the short term (and probably even over the longer term), it then summarizes existing decision-making methodologies that are able to deal with climate-related uncertainty, namely cost-benefit analysis under uncertainty, cost-benefit analysis with real options, robust decision making, and climate informed decision analysis. It also provides examples of applications of these methodologies, highlighting their pros and cons and their domain of applicability. The paper concludes that it is impossible to define the "best" solution or to prescribe any particular methodology in general. Instead, a menu of methodologies is required, together with some indications on which strategies are most appropriate in which contexts. This analysis is based on a set of interviews with decision-makers, in particular World Bank project leaders, and on a literature review on decision-making under uncertainty. It aims at helping decision-makers identify which method is more appropriate in a given context, as a function of the project's lifetime, cost, and vulnerability.


Investment decision making under deep uncertainty -- application to climate change, Vol. 1 of 1




Those who dont understand the ramifications of a paper like this are beyond hopelessly naive. Suffice to say, its about the best barometer on how the power brokers of the world envision financial plans surrounding climate change.


Speaks to "climate related uncertainty" based upon vast descrepancies between models, depending on location.

For example, the paper notes...............

Apparently, the IPCC provides results from 19 global climate models. Even though the models agree on the very big picture (more warming in high latitude than in low latitude; more precipitation in high latitudes; less precipitation around the tropics; more precipitation around the equator), the differences can be huge in some regions (e.g., half the models predict an increase in precipitation over India; half the models predict the opposite; and — as a consequence — the “average model” predicts no change, showing the risk of using an average model).

Here’s another example: “For Ghana, [one model] predicts a 20% increase in precipitation, while [another model] predicts a 30% decrease!”








I laughed my balls off when I saw this.............more strong evidence that the "consensus science" is losing. Now though, I'm just more aware of the level of spin attached to these "climate models". These assholes pick the ones that fit the narrative every time.



But the people out there in charge of $$$ and climate investment................dont.

 

[earthmuffin]

If alternative energy received the kind of subsidies that fossil fuels do, this wouldn't be an issue. Alternative energy is expensive because it hasn't really been invested in the way it should be.

 

[flacaltenn]

If alternative energy received the kind of subsidies that fossil fuels do, this wouldn't be an issue. Alternative energy is expensive because it hasn't really been invested in the way it should be.

So how much ALTERNATIVE energy has been provided since OBAMA plowed $90,000,000,000 into it as SUBSIDIES?? Ener1, Solyndra -- do THOSE ring a bell? In fact, as Romney pointed out -- that $90 BILL is about 20 years of oil subsidies.

And there isn't really even any ALTERNATIVEs --- just "supplements". Because a technology that only delivers for 6 hours a day and is unpredicable to boot will NEVER be a PRIMARY source of electric grid generation.

Have you ever even LOOKED at a production graph for wind farm power?

You LIKE geothermal? Biomass Conversion? ALL OF THESE HAVE BEEN HEAVILY invested and subsidized for DECADES and they contribute DIDDLY SQUAT today in terms of meaningful reliable power..

 

[earthmuffin]

So how much ALTERNATIVE energy has been provided since OBAMA plowed $90,000,000,000 into it as SUBSIDIES?? Ener1, Solyndra -- do THOSE ring a bell? In fact, as Romney pointed out -- that $90 BILL is about 20 years of oil subsidies.

The 90 billion dollar figure you speak of is the entire budget for the Department of Energy's Recovery Act which is a program that has been in existence since 2009. And a mere fraction has actually gone into what you could consider subsidies for wind and solar, nor has the entire amount even been spent yet. Most of the money has gone to cleanup efforts, namely of nuclear weapon storage sites, and programs dedicated to energy efficiency. Much has also gone into the effort to make coal more efficient and cleaner to burn, something Romney himself supports. The companies you mention have cost the government money, yes. However it's in the hundreds of millions, not billions.
Also, the figure that Romney mentioned is not only questionable on it's own, it doesn't take into account any of the things the fossil fuel industry relies upon, like federally supported railroads.
Just as an aside, when Romney claimed half of these federally backed industries failed, that was incorrect. And it was actually only a fifth of what Congress budgeted for.

And there isn't really even any ALTERNATIVEs --- just "supplements". Because a technology that only delivers for 6 hours a day and is unpredicable to boot will NEVER be a PRIMARY source of electric grid generation.

Have you ever even LOOKED at a production graph for wind farm power?

You LIKE geothermal? Biomass Conversion? ALL OF THESE HAVE BEEN HEAVILY invested and subsidized for DECADES and they contribute DIDDLY SQUAT today in terms of meaningful reliable power..

These things have not been invested in. We have, over the years, been improving the efficiency of things like solar energy. It's not something that will come cheap. But it is because that it has been relegated to the position of supplement (like you mentioned), many assume it can be nothing more.

 

[westwall]

If you own the solar photovoltiac, it will cost you nothing after you have finished the payback period. As the price of electricity just keeps going up, even in those areas that do not have renewable energy, the initial investment of the photovoltaic panels with decrease with relationship to the payback period. If one also purchases a vehicle that is a hybrid with a partial ev range, such as the Ford Energi C-Max, your payback period is diminished greatly.

I actually own a solar array, do you? It has never paid for itself. The new ones MAY pay for themselves but I doubt it at the current tech level they are at. The absolute BEST (and thus very expensive) systems operate at a 24% efficiency level out of a theoretical maximum efficiency of 28%.

I set it up because I wanted to have electricity in the case that the grid went down I would at least have some power. It is an emergency backup system for us.

 

[westwall]

Well, yes, it is. The earth is warming. The reason is GHGs produced by humans. The consequences are being felt right now in every grocery store.

As for obese junkies, who cares?

Nice lie. Too bad it's so obvious what the real cause is to normal thinking people eh olfraud?


No, the effect at the grocery store is due to Obama's insanley high fuel prices accross the country that have driven the cost of EVERYTHING up.

 

[westwall]

So how much ALTERNATIVE energy has been provided since OBAMA plowed $90,000,000,000 into it as SUBSIDIES?? Ener1, Solyndra -- do THOSE ring a bell? In fact, as Romney pointed out -- that $90 BILL is about 20 years of oil subsidies.

The 90 billion dollar figure you speak of is the entire budget for the Department of Energy's Recovery Act which is a program that has been in existence since 2009. And a mere fraction has actually gone into what you could consider subsidies for wind and solar, nor has the entire amount even been spent yet. Most of the money has gone to cleanup efforts, namely of nuclear weapon storage sites, and programs dedicated to energy efficiency. Much has also gone into the effort to make coal more efficient and cleaner to burn, something Romney himself supports. The companies you mention have cost the government money, yes. However it's in the hundreds of millions, not billions.
Also, the figure that Romney mentioned is not only questionable on it's own, it doesn't take into account any of the things the fossil fuel industry relies upon, like federally supported railroads.
Just as an aside, when Romney claimed half of these federally backed industries failed, that was incorrect. And it was actually only a fifth of what Congress budgeted for.

And there isn't really even any ALTERNATIVEs --- just "supplements". Because a technology that only delivers for 6 hours a day and is unpredicable to boot will NEVER be a PRIMARY source of electric grid generation.

Have you ever even LOOKED at a production graph for wind farm power?

You LIKE geothermal? Biomass Conversion? ALL OF THESE HAVE BEEN HEAVILY invested and subsidized for DECADES and they contribute DIDDLY SQUAT today in terms of meaningful reliable power..

These things have not been invested in. We have, over the years, been improving the efficiency of things like solar energy. It's not something that will come cheap. But it is because that it has been relegated to the position of supplement (like you mentioned), many assume it can be nothing more.

It is a supplamental system because even the theoretical maximum efficiency for solar is 28%. That's it. It would take covering all of Nevada with solar arrays to power just Las Vegas and Reno. And in the winter....ummmmm..good luck with that.

 

[whitehall]

"Green energy policies" screw America. That's what they were intended to do. What happened to president Hussein's "green jobs" board? Hussein appointed a freaking communist who had no experience other than leading an arson and looting rampage to the green jobs board and then he was sent packing after public outrage and the board either dissolved or didn't but there are no green jobs.

 

[earthmuffin]

So how much ALTERNATIVE energy has been provided since OBAMA plowed $90,000,000,000 into it as SUBSIDIES?? Ener1, Solyndra -- do THOSE ring a bell? In fact, as Romney pointed out -- that $90 BILL is about 20 years of oil subsidies.

The 90 billion dollar figure you speak of is the entire budget for the Department of Energy's Recovery Act which is a program that has been in existence since 2009. And a mere fraction has actually gone into what you could consider subsidies for wind and solar, nor has the entire amount even been spent yet. Most of the money has gone to cleanup efforts, namely of nuclear weapon storage sites, and programs dedicated to energy efficiency. Much has also gone into the effort to make coal more efficient and cleaner to burn, something Romney himself supports. The companies you mention have cost the government money, yes. However it's in the hundreds of millions, not billions.
Also, the figure that Romney mentioned is not only questionable on it's own, it doesn't take into account any of the things the fossil fuel industry relies upon, like federally supported railroads.
Just as an aside, when Romney claimed half of these federally backed industries failed, that was incorrect. And it was actually only a fifth of what Congress budgeted for.

And there isn't really even any ALTERNATIVEs --- just "supplements". Because a technology that only delivers for 6 hours a day and is unpredicable to boot will NEVER be a PRIMARY source of electric grid generation.

Have you ever even LOOKED at a production graph for wind farm power?

You LIKE geothermal? Biomass Conversion? ALL OF THESE HAVE BEEN HEAVILY invested and subsidized for DECADES and they contribute DIDDLY SQUAT today in terms of meaningful reliable power..

These things have not been invested in. We have, over the years, been improving the efficiency of things like solar energy. It's not something that will come cheap. But it is because that it has been relegated to the position of supplement (like you mentioned), many assume it can be nothing more.

It is a supplamental system because even the theoretical maximum efficiency for solar is 28%. That's it. It would take covering all of Nevada with solar arrays to power just Las Vegas and Reno. And in the winter....ummmmm..good luck with that.

An investment in green energy not only includes upping the efficiency of current systems, but in using numerous types working together. It also means using less, being more efficient with the energy we do use and investing in new technologies that can better harness the energy we need.

There are options outside of rooftop solar panels and backyard windmills.

 

[earthmuffin]

"Green energy policies" screw America. That's what they were intended to do. What happened to president Hussein's "green jobs" board? Hussein appointed a freaking communist who had no experience other than leading an arson and looting rampage to the green jobs board and then he was sent packing after public outrage and the board either dissolved or didn't but there are no green jobs.

Why were they intended to screw America? And Obama's record on green energy is pitiful compared to what it could be, but there have still been many green jobs created.

And what's this nonsense about appointing a communist? Is this a real communist, or simply someone that you don't like and would therefore like to tar as one? Because I can tell you, I know a handful of true communists and they are NOT happy with Obama's record.

 

[whitehall]

The 90 billion dollar figure you speak of is the entire budget for the Department of Energy's Recovery Act which is a program that has been in existence since 2009. And a mere fraction has actually gone into what you could consider subsidies for wind and solar, nor has the entire amount even been spent yet. Most of the money has gone to cleanup efforts, namely of nuclear weapon storage sites, and programs dedicated to energy efficiency. Much has also gone into the effort to make coal more efficient and cleaner to burn, something Romney himself supports. The companies you mention have cost the government money, yes. However it's in the hundreds of millions, not billions.
Also, the figure that Romney mentioned is not only questionable on it's own, it doesn't take into account any of the things the fossil fuel industry relies upon, like federally supported railroads.
Just as an aside, when Romney claimed half of these federally backed industries failed, that was incorrect. And it was actually only a fifth of what Congress budgeted for.




These things have not been invested in. We have, over the years, been improving the efficiency of things like solar energy. It's not something that will come cheap. But it is because that it has been relegated to the position of supplement (like you mentioned), many assume it can be nothing more.

It is a supplamental system because even the theoretical maximum efficiency for solar is 28%. That's it. It would take covering all of Nevada with solar arrays to power just Las Vegas and Reno. And in the winter....ummmmm..good luck with that.

An investment in green energy not only includes upping the efficiency of current systems, but in using numerous types working together. It also means using less, being more efficient with the energy we do use and investing in new technologies that can better harness the energy we need.

There are options outside of rooftop solar panels and backyard windmills.

The important question is whether the minds of radical union educated lefties are capable of thinking in anything but cliches.

 

[earthmuffin]

The important question is whether the minds of radical union educated lefties are capable of thinking in anything but cliches.

Do you have anything to add to the discussion or are you just here to insult people?

 

[westwall]

The 90 billion dollar figure you speak of is the entire budget for the Department of Energy's Recovery Act which is a program that has been in existence since 2009. And a mere fraction has actually gone into what you could consider subsidies for wind and solar, nor has the entire amount even been spent yet. Most of the money has gone to cleanup efforts, namely of nuclear weapon storage sites, and programs dedicated to energy efficiency. Much has also gone into the effort to make coal more efficient and cleaner to burn, something Romney himself supports. The companies you mention have cost the government money, yes. However it's in the hundreds of millions, not billions.
Also, the figure that Romney mentioned is not only questionable on it's own, it doesn't take into account any of the things the fossil fuel industry relies upon, like federally supported railroads.
Just as an aside, when Romney claimed half of these federally backed industries failed, that was incorrect. And it was actually only a fifth of what Congress budgeted for.




These things have not been invested in. We have, over the years, been improving the efficiency of things like solar energy. It's not something that will come cheap. But it is because that it has been relegated to the position of supplement (like you mentioned), many assume it can be nothing more.

It is a supplamental system because even the theoretical maximum efficiency for solar is 28%. That's it. It would take covering all of Nevada with solar arrays to power just Las Vegas and Reno. And in the winter....ummmmm..good luck with that.

An investment in green energy not only includes upping the efficiency of current systems, but in using numerous types working together. It also means using less, being more efficient with the energy we do use and investing in new technologies that can better harness the energy we need.

There are options outside of rooftop solar panels and backyard windmills.

I agree and for the next decade or so they will be significantly more expensive than any fossil fuel system currently extant. That is unaceptable to the vast majority of folks out there who simple can't afford "green" energy systems.

I put green in quotes because they all actually pollute more than the systems they are attempting to replace. Eventually that will change (I hope) but that is the reality of today so please don't fool yourself.

 

[flacaltenn]

The 90 billion dollar figure you speak of is the entire budget for the Department of Energy's Recovery Act which is a program that has been in existence since 2009. And a mere fraction has actually gone into what you could consider subsidies for wind and solar, nor has the entire amount even been spent yet. Most of the money has gone to cleanup efforts, namely of nuclear weapon storage sites, and programs dedicated to energy efficiency. Much has also gone into the effort to make coal more efficient and cleaner to burn, something Romney himself supports. The companies you mention have cost the government money, yes. However it's in the hundreds of millions, not billions.
Also, the figure that Romney mentioned is not only questionable on it's own, it doesn't take into account any of the things the fossil fuel industry relies upon, like federally supported railroads.
Just as an aside, when Romney claimed half of these federally backed industries failed, that was incorrect. And it was actually only a fifth of what Congress budgeted for.




These things have not been invested in. We have, over the years, been improving the efficiency of things like solar energy. It's not something that will come cheap. But it is because that it has been relegated to the position of supplement (like you mentioned), many assume it can be nothing more.

It is a supplamental system because even the theoretical maximum efficiency for solar is 28%. That's it. It would take covering all of Nevada with solar arrays to power just Las Vegas and Reno. And in the winter....ummmmm..good luck with that.

An investment in green energy not only includes upping the efficiency of current systems, but in using numerous types working together. It also means using less, being more efficient with the energy we do use and investing in new technologies that can better harness the energy we need.

There are options outside of rooftop solar panels and backyard windmills.

Like WHAT? I've studied "alternatives" for 15 years and there are NO RELIABLE GREEN sources of energy that can stand alone and REPLACE any portion of our electrical generation. Go ahead -- name geothermal and biomass or anything you like. SEVERE environmental consequences for ALL of those.

As for wind and solar -- they are SUPPLEMENTS at any scale. Capable of contributing to maybe 15% of the grid on a STEADY basis.

THe Grants, loans and subsidies that Obama has dumped into alternatives are DEFINATELY into the $BILLS.. I can name 4 failures that total at least $4Bill alone. We've been subsidizing wind and solar for 25 years and they are now MATURE TECHNOLOGIES for which we don't expect QUANTUM LEAPS in performance nor price.

THIS -- is what a typical week for one of the world's greatest windfarms looks like:

You cannot run a modern society on MORE of that. Unless you want to sit in the dark and freeze 2 days or more a week.

As for the communists comment --- study up...

Van Jones, 'Green Jobs Czar', a self-described 'communist' arrested during Rodney King riots - National Conservative Politics | Examiner.com

Jones told the East Bay Express in 2005:

I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th [1992], and then the verdicts came down on April 29th. By August, I was a communist. (...)

I met all these young radical people of color – I mean really radical: communists and anarchists. And it was, like, 'This is what I need to be a part of.' I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary.

Like a character out of The Big Chill, Van Jones seems to have evolved from radical activist to Establishment insider. Perhaps only a left-wing administration incapable of recognizing irony would put a self-described communist in charge of creating jobs.

Luckily for Van Jones, and Obama's many other "Czars" with dubious credentials and troubling backgrounds, his new job was not dependent upon making it through Congressional hearings.

That WAS the Prez's Green Jobs Chief.. The guy who took that program and turned it into a political boondoogle that counted trash collectors, antique restorers, and clothes recycling as "green jobs".. Something that's NOT what America needs to survive in a Global economy...

So ---- unless you're just wishing and praying that some wholesome, useful green energy will be dropped off by the Romulans tomorrow ---- you got nothing. NOTHING for BILLS AND BILLS in subsidies...