The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search

Romney's Energy Plan Ignores the Success of Solar and Wind: View

Deborah Solomon and Mary Duenwald, Bloomberg Editors
August 24, 2012  |  159 Comments

Print

Mitt Romney sets an ambitious goal with his pledge to achieve U.S. energy independence by 2020. It's just too bad his plan relies almost entirely on fossil fuels and largely ignores the solid promise of clean energy.

Romney’s plan, rolled out Thursday in solar-friendly New Mexico, focuses heavily on oil, gas and, most unnecessarily, coal. The presumptive Republican presidential nominee promises to expand drilling on federal lands and to roll back environmental rules his campaign adviser Ed Gillespie says are “destroying the coal industry.”

When it comes to renewable sources such as solar and wind, Romney’s plan says more about what he won’t do -- namely, provide any more of the subsidies and loan guarantees that have allowed those technologies to gain a foothold. Instead, he offers to relax barriers he says are stymying clean energy and expand government funding of research. We also favor supporting clean-energy research, but question Romney’s assertion that simply “streamlining” regulations and permitting will somehow catapult clean-energy projects.

Romney’s white paper includes a few other worthwhile ideas, such as allowing drilling off the coast of Virginia, which has bipartisan support from that state’s senators.

On balance, though, his plan threatens to upend the progress that has been made toward enabling the U.S. to meet much of its energy needs with less reliance on dirtier fuels like coal.

The U.S. is now closer to energy independence than anyone who waited in 1970s gas lines could have imagined. As Bloomberg News reports, oil imports fell to about 45 percent of U.S. demand last year and are expected to fall to about 42 percent this year, down from a peak of 60 percent in 2005. More than 80 percent of the country’s demand for power is now met by domestic sources, a phenomenon largely attributable to new horizontal- drilling and hydraulic-fracturing technologies that enable energy companies to tap vast but once-inaccessible underground reserves of natural gas and oil.

All that cheap natural gas has slowly been pushing coal off its perch as the dominant American power source. As of April, natural gas has been producing just as much energy as coal, for the first time since the government began collecting data in 1973. Electricity generated from natural gas -- which can be 45 percent cleaner than coal, if done properly -- is expected to increase 23 percent this year, as coal-fueled power falls 12 percent, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. By 2035, coal is projected to supply just 39 percent of electricity, down from about 45 percent today, according to EIA.

Power primarily from wind, solar, biomass and geothermal sources, meanwhile, is projected to grow 33 percent from 2010 to 2035. By 2020, 10 percent of power is expected to come from renewables, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

Much of this uptick can be credited to $90 billion in government assistance that’s helped the industry get off the ground: Electricity generated from renewable sources such as wind and solar has increased 73 percent since President Barack Obama took office, according to a Bloomberg Government analysis.

The very real potential of greener fuel has also spawned thousands of companies and tens of thousands of jobs, according to industry and White House estimates. It’s still a nascent business, in need of support to compete with an entrenched -- and heavily government-subsidized -- fossil fuel industry. Given how far clean energy has come, why stop it in its tracks now?

If Romney is looking for ideas, free-market strategies are the way to go. One that is gaining traction in many states is to require utilities to use a certain percentage of electricity generated by renewable power and then let the markets sort out the most efficient way to meet that target.

Even more helpful would be to support a carbon tax -- something that two of Romney’s top economic advisers have already called for. This would let the markets decide how much it’s worth to them to send greenhouse gases aloft.

“I like wind and solar like the next person,” Romney said in his speech Thursday. Listeners would be forgiven for thinking that the next person doesn’t like them much at all.

Copyright 2012 Bloomberg.

Lead image: Opinion in dictionary via Shutterstock

159 Comments

Register To Comment
ANONYMOUS
September 9, 2012
It would be refreshing to hear either candidate demonstrate an understanding of the Constitutional limits of the powers of their office. No agency of the US federal government has the authority to enforce regulations like cap and trade. However, an individual US state government does have such powers.

While I personally disagree with cap and trade systems, as long as they are implemented at the state level I can't claim they are unconstitutional.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
September 8, 2012
Give us some examples of where FDR took customers away from private utility companies, Mike.

Cap and Trade is not a take over of private business by any (rational) stretch of imagination. It's a regulation system. Are you not aware that we used a cap and trade system to successfully eliminate acid rain and that it did not involve taking over any private business?

Claiming that you don't have time to post facts but returning to post more unsupported (and highly suspect claims) just doesn't look good Mike.

Neither does stomping off in high dudgeon when asked to provide proof for charges. It smells of flop sweat....
Mike Holly
Mike Holly
September 8, 2012
I can give you some quick tips but after that you are too uninformed or naive or something to waste anymore of my time. You don't even understand that the nationalization of an industry does not require the takeover of a single company. The government can just build their own generation and take their customers away like FDR did. Also, the nationalization will never even be that simple in a country with free market origins and instead must be done with insidious subterfuge. Democrats like Obama wanted to further their takeover of the energy and health care industries with Cap and Trade and a single payer system but were stopped from even doing that. A depression may open their opportunities. In addition, I will not keep my claims to myself on your orders. Moreover, I have to decide who is even worthy of my precious time and that doesn't include someone who draws out this article's comments to 158. So please keep your orders to yourself and get your education somewhere else.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
September 8, 2012
Well, educate us Mike.

List the private utility companies seized by FDR and turned into government agencies. That's what nationalization would require.

If you don't have time to back up your claims, then please keep them to yourself.
Mike Holly
Mike Holly
September 8, 2012
You guys have little understanding of the nationalization of the electricity industry during FDR. I don't have time now to explain it to you other than to say federal power reached far beyond rural areas into areas previously served by private utilities and benefited from many subsidies.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
September 8, 2012
Let me take it further...

The main role of government is to protect us from those who would do us harm.

Harm can come from outside sources and harm can come from inside sources.

The most greedy are generally the source of our inside harm. The greediest rob our savings, either at gunpoint or by dishonest manipulation of financial activities. They run a Madoff scheme, take over and grab the cash from our businesses, or write themselves sweetheart tax loopholes.

The greediest harm our lives by polluting or selling us contaminated food or products. By selling us shoddy built appliances and cars.

We have seen the greediest do these things with our own eyes.

We have no option but to gather together to establish regulations and enforcement to keep the danger from the greedy to a minimum.

Those who champion "free markets" and "less regulation" work to make it easier for the worst among us to practice their dark arts at the expense of the rest of us.

Are some of our regulations poorly designed or outdated? I've no doubt that is true. We should adjust/remove those regulations as needed.

Does that mean that we should just do away with all regulations?

That, "my friends", would just be stupid. A tiny percentage would become gazillionaires and the rest of us would be in a world of hurt.
lawrence elliott
lawrence elliott
September 8, 2012
"We are not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers"

Quote: A Romney campaign adviser


"I am not going to waste my time looking up the names of every federal, cooperative and municipal utility formed by FDR."

Quote: Mike Holly.
lawrence elliott
lawrence elliott
September 8, 2012
@mike-holly-17241

Wow!
Mike!

I can only agree with Bob Wallace here
It appears facts may be your own version of Kryptonite

First a 'reality check'

"But instead of freeing markets, FDR used nationalization"

(He had not choice in many cases but to try and save the utility infrastructure crumbling due to the bankruptcy of private utilities. Same thing with saving GM by Obama)

"to keep the country in the Great Depression until WWII "

( the country was coming out nicely but was put on growth steroids by Eisenhower in the 50's using what you call "non free market solutions". In addition he did it while taxing the rich at over %90)

"It wasn't until after the War that the country prospered while rebuilding of Europe."
(Europe rebuilt itself using massive subsidies from the Marshal Plan. Most of Europe was reduced to rubble due to the "free markets" put in place by Germany's Wiemar Republic and by having international capital markets bleed Germany's 'life blood' using the Versailles Treaty)


"He continued blocking decentralized competition from efficient industrial cogeneration." (if you have a shred of evidence please share it with all of us. Co generation in the 30's did not exist due to low kwhr costs vs capital expenses for co generation equipment.Ever larger centralized power plants kept killing any dream of co generation no FDR)


"I expect him to try much more grandiose communistic public projects like a national "smart" grid." (calling the so called smart grid "communistic" immediately destroys any support for the rest of your arguments due to its overwhelming absurdity similar to calling Tweeting a conspiracy to kill bird songs)


"Obama will fail miserably with his government takeover and projects."
(So it appears you are also not a fan of Romney due to his obvious monopolistic philosophies. Obama will fail. So who do you suggest we vote for?)


Ron Paul?

Yeah!
That's going to happen.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
September 8, 2012
Neither FDR or BHO has nationalized a single business.

Establishing a public entity to provide citizens something that the private sector has failed to provide is not nationalization.

TVA was created in order to bring electricity to a part of the nation where no private company had found it adequately profitable to create the generation and string the wire.

If your town decides that it needs to move past individual septic systems and install a municipal waste treatment system, that is not nationalization. That is us coming together to produce something for the common good.

Obama has nothing to nationalize energy or health care. He as seized no private companies and put them under control of the government.

As for health care, the insurance companies had decades to figure out how to insure all of us. They failed.

The insurance companies cherry-picked the healthiest and kicked off people when they got sick. That was not working for us, leaving tens of millions uninsured and tens of thousands unnecessarily dying each year.

President Obama took over exactly zero health insurance companies. He nationalized not a single company.

What PBO did was to change the rules of the game. 1) Sell insurance to everyone. 2) Kick off no one because they get expensive to treat.

That's no more nationalization than for the NBA to pass a rule that you can't use step ladders to dunk.

(My problem with your writing is that I know what words like "nationalization" mean and I know a little bit of history.)
Mike Holly
Mike Holly
September 8, 2012
I am not going to waste my time looking up the names of every federal, cooperative and municipal utility formed by FDR.

I said Obama is increasing government control and moving toward nationalization, especially in energy and health care.

Your problem is you just won't read what is on the page.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
September 8, 2012
Please tell me the names of businesses that FDR nationalized.

Please tell me the name of one single business that Obama nationalized.

Are you working on "Mike Holly's Absurd History Book"? Trying out your historical fantasy here?

Your stuff is getting beyond bizarre. It's getting into the "See your physician" territory.
Mike Holly
Mike Holly
September 8, 2012
I agree the US has suffered from a concentration of industry (monopolization) under Coolidge and Hoover (who are like Bush and Romney).

But instead of freeing markets, FDR used nationalization to keep the country in the Great Depression until WWII. It wasn't until after the War that the country prospered while rebuilding of Europe.

FDR replaced private utility monopolies with government-controlled, nationalized federal, cooperative and municipal monopolies that built centralized projects like hydro. He continued blocking decentralized competition from efficient industrial cogeneration.

During his first term, Obama built on Bush's fascist policies (where government tells private industry what to do). Currently, government is controlling the industry by mandating and subsidizing cellulosic ethanol, and wind and solar. It has been an economic disaster (debt and the great recession).

Even natural gas has been achieved only by continuing the exemption of fracking from the Safe Drinking Water Act. Obama will continue allowing the poisoning of the ground, along with greenhouse gases, because wind needs gas for backup.

Especially after Obama's reference in his speech to FDR's EXPERIMENTS, I expect him to try much more grandiose communistic public projects like a national "smart" grid.

Like FDR, Obama will promise to pull the US out of depression by moving toward nationalization. Obama is the one being dishonest by leaving out the parts that he will raise taxes far more than he claims and nationalize industries (like health care with his proposed standardized care and also energy).

Obama will fail miserably with his government takeover and projects.

The nation needs to right the favoritism given to utility monopolies during electricity deregulation and then deregulate the rest of the states to free markets. Only then will the nation benefit from private innovation and new clean energies.
lawrence elliott
lawrence elliott
September 8, 2012
@Bob Wallace

Bob just remember one thing when speaking of Republicans and their obedient followers.

History and facts are as much a poison for them and their ability to win elections as Kryptonite poisons SuperMan.

As to FDR and Republican revisionist history (just think 1984 where history was altered or called 'bunk')here is just a very short list of some of his accomplishments put in place in spite of the best efforts of his contemporary class of clowns and fools in Congress.

REA (Rural Electrification Administration)
Republicans and their owners from the private utilities called it a communist plot and socialism.

Hydroelectric dams on the Columbia.

Again the same crap from the stooges.
"Socialism"
"Communism"
"Will destroy free enterprise"

Actually we would have had only a few aircraft flying over Germany had the Republicans had their way as there would have been a severe shortage of aluminum.

Most non Republicans will quickly gather why this is so but true Republicans will have to hold their nose,back away from viewing Fox for a minute and read something.

TVA Tennessee Valley Authority
Carbon copy of the doom and gloom created to scare low information voters over evils of socialism etc.

Pick up a book (no not another Glenn Beck rag) and read about the thousands of other things FDR spent money on to help save capitalism from the capitalists by helping remove recruitment incentives (starvation,despair,hopelessness) that was swelling the ranks of the American communist movements .

Or you can just join the lemmings who will vote for Romney/Ryan (front men for Economic Royalists) and drive what is left of our country over a cliff.
lawrence elliott
lawrence elliott
September 8, 2012
"From his speech, Obama would likely greatly increase taxes (especially on higher incomes and business) and spending on public projects, while Romney would likely lower taxes, spending and regulations."

Pretty good summation

For all of those who will vote for Romney in spite of the overwhelming evidence he would be far worse than Bush and his Crime Family here are some facts.

We now borrow 43 cents of every dollar spent each year.
Interest on the current debt consumes near %100 of every dollar collected in income taxes.

If every dime spent on everything except for Medicare and Medicaid and what is called defense department (war department is far more accurate)we would continue borrowing at least 20 cents of every dollar spent.

Now add Romney/Ryan budget where they flush even more money down the war rat hole,cut taxes on the only group who now has massive excess wealth (largely stolen or scammed or inherited and shielded from taxes off shore),add an average of $2000/year in taxes on the average person and cut discretionary spending (proven to suppress economy and reduce revenue and increase deficit)and you will have the Bush Crime Family budget (massive criminal train wreck)on steroids.

You all know it as.........

The REPUBLICAN Bush Crime Family budget that put the world into this steaming pile of economic excrement?

You want an instant replay?

Then vote against the really lousy candidate and vote for Romney/Ryan.

See you all on the soup line.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
September 8, 2012
Gosh, Mike - FDR gave us failed projects? Do you read only history books written by right wing crackpots?

I wish to hell some of the folks who think FDR did us wrong would have to go back and live in pre-FDR America. Enjoy some of those six day 10-12 hour work weeks with no overtime or on the job safety regs. Hit their old age with their savings wiped out by the lack of SEC controls over financial institutions and have no Social Security system to keep them fed.

The US needs well-regulated free markets. There has to be a balance between markets that reward individual effort and initiative and control over the greediest of those who would harm the rest of us in order to become wealthy.

The free market dream of libertarians would take us back to the days of monopolies and rivers that catch on fire.

There is nothing in Obama's plan or history that suggests nationalization of private companies. That's just a bizarre claim. Even while taking a stock holding in GM as a way to protect taxpayer money there are no Obama appointees on GM's board, the CEO of GM is not an Obama appointee.

President Obama would require that the wealthy pay a fair share.

When a guy like Romney can do no work but "earn" 20 million in a year, then pay a lower tax rate than someone working their butt off for just enough money to keep their family afloat there is something wrong with our system.

Reading your version of Obama's plan - other than your dishonest twists (nationalizing health care, mandating renewable energy) - I agree. Sounds like the way to get our country moving forward again.

We need the federal government to do more to create jobs. Yes, government creates jobs.

Corporations and wealthy people are sitting on huge piles of cash but will not spend/invest to put people back to work. We're going to have to do that job with our tax dollars. And then get our dollars back when those new jobs start creating tax revenues.
Mike Holly
Mike Holly
September 8, 2012
From his speech, Obama would likely greatly increase taxes (especially on higher incomes and business) and spending on public projects, while Romney would likely lower taxes, spending and regulations. The US needs free markets, not Romney's monopolization or Obama's nationalization (like FDR's failed policies during the Great Depression).

Obama Plan
1 Energy
a oil – end subsidies and maintain environmental regulations
b natural gas – continue increasing production (with environmental exemptions?)
c renewable energy – continue mandating and subsidizing biofuels, wind and solar
d conservation – continue mandating auto mileage and home heating
2 Education – add math/science teachers, improve K-12 education, continue financial aid at colleges
3 Trade – higher taxes on corporations locating overseas, increase domestic manufacturing and exports, like autos
4 Deficits and Taxes - higher taxes on incomes over $250,000, cut defense budget (by ending wars in Middle East)
5 Economy
a Banking – continue regulation
b Health care – continue nationalization
c Jobs – build roads, bridges, schools and runways
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
September 7, 2012
I, too, live out in the country. I just came home from a gravel and groceries run. Filling for potholes and tummy.

I've got a 3.5 mile drive on sometimes steep, unpaved road and then a 35 mile drive to shopping. More like 50 miles to good shopping. I need something more than a reliable 100 mile range and definitely need 4wd.

I could do with a 4wd RAV4 EV and an in-town rapid charger, but they are only releasing a 2wd version and I've heard of no plans to get us a rapid charge outlet.

I'm watching the Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV that is to be shown at the Paris auto show this month. I think it will have a 40 mile electric range which would get me to town, then I could come back on fuel and cut my gas bill in half. The Outlander is supposed to have full lockdown 4wd.

Sometimes I need to go 'the other way' and it's about 150 miles to where a charger is likely to be installed in the next 5+ years. I suspect I'm going to have to go PHEV rather than EV.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
September 7, 2012
I wish you had answered the question Mark.

But I suspect you realize that almost no one would pick the ICEV version. We should reach the point at which there will be little difference in price between EVs, PHEVs, and ICEVs. EVs may well drop below the price of the other two.

When we hit that point I suspect the market will flip almost instantly. Roughly 50% of all US driving is done with cars five years old or newer. Within 5-7 years the country will be burning about half as much oil as now.

King Oil will quickly loose his crown and kingdom.
Erik Kiehle
Erik Kiehle
September 7, 2012
Well, define "out in the country". We're on 1 acre out in the county. Closest gas station is about 5 miles away, and town is 8 miles away. Still, even if I run all the way to the far side of town it's only 30 miles each way which is within the Nissan Leaf's battery range. There's also a rapid charger at the Nissan dealership in town. I'd have to check but I think it's available for anyone to use. So if I got to town and wasn't sure if there was sufficient power to get home I could recharge with the fast charger at the Nissan dealership.

Test drove a Nissan Leaf this week and was VERY impressed. Haven't suffered with a car payment in almost 7 years now though so will have to see if I want to drop a big chunk of money on a Nissan Leaf or on a PV system for my house.
MARK SMITH
MARK SMITH
September 7, 2012
To Bob:
I live out in the country, but if EV's were practical and available here,and I could afford it, I would probably buy an EV. I love the idea of electric cars. I have a ford ranger now.
Erik Kiehle
Erik Kiehle
September 7, 2012
I think the current 480v high-amp chargers for the Nissan Leaf at least are still calculated to take 30-min for an 80% charge. Still, that's not much more than stopping for a bathroom break and a Starbucks which I do on road trips every 100 miles anyway.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
September 7, 2012
Mark, suppose you were in the market for a new car in 2017. Suppose you walked into the dealer's showroom and found three versions of the car you were interested in (size, luxury level, color, stuff).

And suppose they all cost the same. The exact same price out the door.

1) Basic internal combustion engine. 40MPG. Fifteen cents to drive using $6/gallon fuel.

2) Plug in hybrid. Would drive 60 miles on electricity at four cents a mile and then unlimited distances at fifteen cents per mile.

3) Battery powered EV. Four cents per mile to drive. Would drive ~175 miles on a charge, recharge in less than 15 minutes making it possible to drive 500 miles with only two short pauses.

Which do you think you would purchase?

Remember - the exact same sales price. Same stereo. Same seat material. Only difference cost per mile to drive.
MARK SMITH
MARK SMITH
September 7, 2012
1) I apologize if I offended anybody with what I thought was humor.
2)I still think brevity is better than rambling.
3)I understood the math, but petroleum will be king for the forseeable future.
4)To me sustainability of the energy sources America uses is really a national security issue. I am for it more than some of you. I am just baffled by how easily influenced most people are by trendy arguments.
We live in a big universe and mankind is very small.
Thomas M
Thomas M
September 7, 2012
Well Anonymous Steve, we were attacked first, and we should all continue to learn every day or our lives, more time alive, more days to learn, more knownledge gained.....and a lot of current education is biased especially political science and the like..which is why I chose practical skills and engineering for my education. Math doesn't lie or change and practical vocational skills are always needed.....
Erik Kiehle
Erik Kiehle
September 7, 2012
Very interesting comments all. Yesterday I decided to drop into the Nissan dealership here in Abilene, TX and ask if they had any Nissan Leaf cars I could look at. It's not as plush as I'm used to, but has many new features and gadgets my '03 Accord doesn't have like iPhone integration, backup camera, etc. I didn't go into the dealership with the intention of doing a test drive but when the salesperson offered I decided "why not".

I strongly urge everyone on this comment thread to go see if their local Nissan dealership has a Leaf they can test drive. I was very favorably impressed with the silent drive. There was zero engine noise, and darn near zero wind noise even at 70mph. The only sound you really hear is the tires. At first this seems loud. When I left and drove my Honda I realized my tires were just as loud, but the wind and engine noises were louder still. So the Leaf tire noise was just a different sound from my Honda's overriding engine/wind noise.

Acceleration to highway speeds was comparable to my '03 Accord (4cyl). Spacious front seat area with lots of legroom. Back seat headroom is good, legroom is more comparable to my wife's '99 Lexus GS300. So overall just as much legroom for the kids as what they're used to. The Leaf's trunk space was also much better than I expected.

JUST GO CHECK OUT AND TEST DRIVE A NISSAN LEAF. I definitely view this as the future.

BTW, Abilene, TX is surrounded by commercial wind farms. I'm on a 20%-wind electricity plan right now but could select a 100%-wind option too. We who read this site are the early adopters and will be the ones to influence our families and friends as this technology becomes more prevalent. Go test drive a Leaf instead of reading about it.
ANONYMOUS
September 7, 2012
Thomas writes in comment #134:
"just check out s m's profile. student, so he is still learning..."

I wonder if Thomas is still learning; he doesn't strike me as learned otherwise he would understand that attacking a person rather than his ideas conveys the clear impression that that one cannot compete in the realm of ideas.
Steven
Thomas M
Thomas M
September 7, 2012
....still using the cook analogy, it's hard to replace them if they are the main stockholders in the company and will continue their practices as they see fit irregardless of the customers (peoples)comments or requests.
And yes, age and experience can be beneficial, but i think we all know that in the case of gov., it only creates monsters that know how to manipulate and control the system and teach and bring underlings under their wings.
And yes we can dissolve our gov if we want to, it has been done time and time again in history. Our US gov was created only 200+ years ago by people who wanted a new type of gov, so we should be able to do it again. That's if we think we need a gov at all.
Thomas M
Thomas M
September 7, 2012
just check out s m's profile. student, so he is still learning...
lawrence elliott
lawrence elliott
September 7, 2012
"Limiting your comments to 100 words on topic"

smith-mark

So we see you have a thing for "bumper sticker logic"

A few extra words and reading above a sixth grade level becomes a challenge?

Stooges?

So far I see only one stooge.

One who calls well thought out and logical discussion nonsense is the real stooge.

Rhomney,Palin and Ryan

Now that's a trio of stooges.

They don't really speak 'nonsense' do they smith-mark?
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
September 6, 2012
Mark, one can tell when someone has realized that their ideas are bogus.

They resort to name calling.
MARK SMITH
MARK SMITH
September 6, 2012
To: Bob , Larry, Thomas, and George, the 4 stooges:
1)Limiting your comments to 100 words on topic might give them more clarity.
2)None of us knows for sure why oil companies invest in 'sustainables' but it is such a small part of their business that it is probably just for publicity value.
3) Please don't take it personally, but most of what you men have written is nonsense. I said 'most'.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
September 6, 2012
Thomas, I think the smart move would be for the owners to replace the bad cooks and give the good cook a pat on the back.

We can't close our "restaurant", we can't dissolve our government and expect a better one to spring up. There's no other restaurant for us to patronize. If we want our government to work better then we need to hire better cooks.

Right now I think climate change is the largest danger to our country.

We are experiencing the effects of climate change right now via floods, droughts, heavier snowfalls, heat waves, and more intense storms. It will only get worse. If we don't start working much harder it will get immensely worse.

The second largest danger comes from our dependence on oil. Much of the world's oil comes from places where there is a lot of unrest and that is spilling over to us, causing people to crash airplanes into our buildings and dragging us into oil wars.

We need to get people who understand and support renewable energy into Congress. Republicans or Democrats, either are fine as long as they know how to "cook" really well. And good cooks have to cook rather than fight with each other.

--

Age - I want a mix of ages. I want some wisdom of the ages mixed with young and 'up to speed on the latest technology and thinking'. Hang on to the old and wise. Old by itself should not be a qualifier, performance should be for all age levels.

What might help is to get rid of the seniority system. That makes long-serving people more powerful even if they aren't all that good. Power keeps getting them reelected.

We've got term limits in CA and it's terrible. We have lost the institutional history resources that can get the new folks up to speed in a hurry. That gives too much power to the bureaucratic and lobbying folks, the newbys look to them to explain stuff.

November is coming. Cook replacement time.
Thomas M
Thomas M
September 6, 2012
Bob, your comment,

"You know very well that within any group of people there are some good and some bad. Figure out who is bad and help get them out of Congress. Don't throw out the good with the bad, don't hate on those who are on our side."

is true, but if there is a restaurant with 9 bad cooks and one good cook, and it constantly gets bad reviews, I would expect that restaurant to close, not continually open up new franchises.
Retirement age should also be considered, why are there so many overage congressmen still in the mix whose values are based on their own financial gain rather than the financial gain that should be focused on the people? They should hand over their jobs to younger people with new ideas and ideals, but that would disrupt and destroy their agenda.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
September 5, 2012
Is it impossible to get a few of the worst climate change deniers out of Congress? I'm not convinced that it is impossible.

Not all Republicans are idiots, far from it. Many are Republicans because the are pro-business, pro-military, have strongly held religious/social beliefs and not because they are rabid climate change deniers. Is it not possible that there are people who will continue to vote Republican for non-climate reasons but are concerned about climate change?

If so, isn't it time for them to start stepping up and insisting that their Republican candidates for local, state and federal office adopt a different attitude about climate change?

--

The coal industry is stupid. Their share of the grid has fallen from over 50% to the low 30% level (unofficial numbers for 2012). They should be rapidly moving capital into other activities.

The oil industry is showing a bit more smarts. Exxon is the world's largest producer of geothermal. Other oil companies are investing in battery technology, etc. And oil has a much longer market life, it will take us at least a couple of decades to get ICEVs off our roads. Cheap storage (possible coming in two years) will friggin' kill coal and kill it quickly.
George Reynoldson
George Reynoldson
September 5, 2012
Re: #126 'I think we've got a decent chance of doing that. But we need to get 'friends of fossil fuels' out of our government and keep them out. It's not just Romney.' Despite being an impossible suggestion, this is a very masterly use of understatement. However, it appears to me that 'enlightening the empowered' might be easier than 'empowering the enlightened' at this point. Don't fool yourself, the fossil fuel industries have understood AGW since the '80s if not sooner and probably just want to be 'bribed' into a progressive carbon tax or be nationalized as urgency AWARENESS grows.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
September 5, 2012
I have no doubt that fossil fuel interests will start tooting the geo-engineering and carbon sequestering horns once denying looses it's effectiveness.

It's pretty clear that carbon sequestering at the smokestack is a looser. It, in addition to requiring capex, uses energy and makes the electricity generated more expensive. It would make it harder for coal to compete with wind + natural gas. (That's the economic battle de jour.)

Geo-engineering, we don't have a workable technology. We did just learn that it would be feasible and affordable to place some sort of reflectant up in the stratosphere (18km or so up). But we don't have a good candidate for what that substance might be. SO2 would reflect incoming heat/sunlight but would cause acid rain and we've been there before.

I think we are forced to research geo-engineering as a lifeboat. If we fail to cut our GHGs fast enough and deeply enough then we need a backup plan.

I think it very unlikely that we'll discover a geo-engineering technology which would let us continue burning fossil fuels at the current rate. A lifeboat? Possibly. A strong enough "bilge pump" to let us keep on sailing the way we are? Unlikely.

Something that I just learned and something that greatly gives me hope is that the US seems to have peaked CO2 emissions in the middle of the last decade and since US CO2 emissions have been dropping.

Those drops are not due to lower electricity generation and lower annual miles driven, but seemingly real reductions. Europe has also peaked. China expects to peak by 2030 and with luck they will be able to bring that date forward. If we can get the total world to peak by around 2020 we might be OK. Of course we need to not just peak, but also drop significantly from there on.

I think we've got a decent chance of doing that. But we need to get 'friends of fossil fuels' out of our government and keep them out. It's not just Romney.
George Reynoldson
George Reynoldson
September 5, 2012
This has been one of the most useful online energy/climate discussions that I have read and comes at a very timely moment between political conventions. Of MUCH concern to me is that once climate change acceptance has overridden climate change denial in the political 'debate', might both parties continue to fuel more unnecessary 'uncertainty and inaction' with a prolonged discussion of carbon sequestration and geoengineering? Though both of these seem like non-solutions to me and futile if attempted, a serious sequestration/geoengineering debate might prove to be a useful discussion point to get the globe focused on their dangers and the fact that the industrial revolution itself has been a form of geoengineering which we now need to UN-engineer QUICKLY! Just realizing that the horrendous 2012 Arctic ice sheet melt is what appears to be prolonging weather patterns and causing a lot of extreme weather events (as some climate scientists are saying), our top political leaders might get the idea that we had better start UN-engineering our badly damaged atmosphere now... AND DAMN QUICKLY. Essentially, a 'Decarbonization Age' of the 2010s (and 2020s) would be roughly equivalent to the popularized 'Solar Age' predicted and attempted by many in the 1970s only more doable more quickly with a much richer range of technologies despite the necessity of having to import all of them from Asia instead of producing them ourselves
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
September 5, 2012
Perhaps you would be interesting in learning that all the major oil companies have acknowledged that climate change is happening. Only the coal industry is still denying.

ExxonMobil tells its investors that "rising greenhouse gas emissions pose risks to society and ecosystems that could be significant." Chevron says on its website: "[T]he use of fossil fuels to meet the world's energy needs is a contributor to an increase in greenhouse gases … There is a widespread view that this increase is leading to climate change, with adverse effects on the environment." ConocoPhillips goes further: "ConocoPhillips recognizes that human activity, including the burning of fossil fuels, is contributing to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that can lead to adverse changes in global climate." BP even cites the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on its website. And Shell urges that "CO2 emissions must be reduced to avoid serious climate change."

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/issue/

Ain't that a kick in the pants?
lawrence elliott
lawrence elliott
September 5, 2012
I'm no climatologist with years and years of intense study of climate and the reasons for change

There is no politician or oil company exec who has spent their life studying climate phenomena either.

I'm certain not a person posting here with all sorts of opinions does either.

So do I just believe the climatologists and take sides,and just have faith that they are correct?

Believe those with a vested interest in denial?


No!

Taking sides in this debate is just plain stupid and naive.

What a rational person would do is ask.

If the climatologist is correct and the oil company guys are wrong then what?

Do I have a plan B?

If we simply open our eyes and cast off all the doom and gloom as well as pie in the sky and realize we have no choice either way no matter which side we take

We need to get the hell off of fossil fuels that our very existence now depends on which can only get more and more scarce and expensive and WILL run out no matter all our wishing and dreaming

So now

If we make the difficult transition to fuels that are renewable,are as non polluting as possible and can free mankind from the yoke of petro/fossil slavery and subservience while greatly improving our quality of life,not to mention adding untold employment opportunities,what will we have lost if the petro fascists are correct and there was no global climate change after all?

Nothing

All the benefits would still be gained

So knowing all this what the hell are you waiting on?

Anyone change a light bulb today?
Walk to the store?
Plant an organic garden
Insulate your house

Hug your solar panels?

Nah!

Better to just sit and bitch all day

"You're an idiotic climate denier"
"No you are some liberal fool"

On and on while oceans rise,droughts kill crops, cities choke on their own exhaust etc etc

Not for me

I'll just get back to doing my part and laughing all the way to the bank.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
September 5, 2012
Mark, there are "natural cycles". The Earth changes its orientation to the Sun, the oceans warm and cool, the Sun warms and cools.

What is happening right now is not a natural cycle. Period.

Romney's energy plan, if we are stupid enough to follow it, takes us down a path of destruction of our way of life. It's just a butt dumb way to power our lifestyle.

It's time to quit using fossil fuels. Not only because they are wrecking our climate, they are also harming our health, wasting our money and making our country less safe.

We have the technology right now - this very moment - to allow us to quit using coal and the majority of the oil we now use.

Enough of this foolish "natural cycle" crap. It's just a diversion that gets in the way of fixing our problems and serves only to pile more money into the bank accounts of the fossil fuel owners.
MARK SMITH
MARK SMITH
September 5, 2012
To Bob:
1)What did Solomon and Duenwald write about? Romney's Energy Plans.
2)I just remember that the NA glacer cycle is about 20k years.
3)There is only speculation and theory about the cause.
4)But....the vast scope of many longterm concepts makes them difficult to understand. Earth's biosphere is a big place, and in the big picture, man is just a grain of sand on the beach. Severe anthropomorphic climate change is politically correct and easy to understand, but is hardly certain.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
September 5, 2012
Thomas, I understand your anger toward Congress. We have just gone through two years in which our Congress has done almost nothing to help us. With our economy struggling and so many of us out of work they have refused to pass even simple bills like giving a temporary tax benefit to a company hiring someone new.

Our corporations are sitting on enormous piles of cash. The wealthy of this country have incredible amounts of money. When we see people paying one hundred million dollars for a painting we know that the wealthy have all the money they need.

We need some of that money invested back into the country to get our economy moving, but all those corporations are waiting for someone to go first, to create a bit more activity and then they will jump in. It's a "No, you go first" time in our economy.

This is the time when the government needs to step up and fuel the economy. Yes, we would have to borrow money to do so. But here's the great deal - we can borrow that money at close to 0%. We can easily pay that money back with the tax revenues which would be created by people going back to work and by cutting unemployment expenses.

Now - not all our congress members have blocked getting the country rolling again. It's the Republicans who have been blocking recovery in their campaign to make President Obama fail. They have been very clear that they are willing to let Americans suffer in order to make Mitt president.

Please focus your anger on those who have earned it.

You know very well that within any group of people there are some good and some bad. Figure out who is bad and help get them out of Congress. Don't throw out the good with the bad, don't hate on those who are on our side.
Thomas M
Thomas M
September 5, 2012
Bob, comment #112, is exactly right. More people need to realize that we all depend on millions of people each day to get by in life, millions more if you consider the dead ones. We do not need to depend on the 565 idiots in DC to get by, and we need to realize they depend on us. Stop supporting them and see how far they get in life. Next time a politician stops into your business, refuse them service. They need a coffee and sandwich, make them wash dishes to pay for it. They need their car fixed, let them walk til they learn to fix it themselves. If we shut them off like they shut us off they will learn pretty quick that they too are part of rest of us and not something special. They are the worst welfare cases in the country.
lawrence elliott
lawrence elliott
September 4, 2012
John if you examine with an open mind what Bob has been saying all along and then compare his rhetoric to what you could heard coming from Dwight D Eisenhower at the 1956 Republican Convention or even compare what Bob and many like him, who appears to be normal, with opinions from a person most folks who are devout members of the conservative religion see as their patron saint, Ronald Reagan, you would logically have to also call both of these Republicans Marxists. Seems Bob is in good company then.

Two things quickly become obvious to the UN-assimilated.

Either we were all fooled into thinking these men were just average Americans rather than Marxists or we now need to recognize that the present day Republican Party and all those who are now members of this conservative cult have truly lost their collective minds.

Barry Goldwater,the father of what was called appropriately conservatism in his day once said "extremism in defense of liberty is no vice".

How true

But extremism in defense of what has been proven time and time again in history as indefensible,corrupting,and for all intents and purposes evil is not only a vice but is a sign of a sick mind.

From what I see coming from the present day party of Reagan and Eisenhower there is little difference ,except for geography and time, between the severely conservative Nazis in the 30's and 40's
and Paul Ryan or the pathetic narcissist and shape shifter Romney along with a long list of fools, whores and losers who orchestrate the madness that is the Republican Party.

You almost feel pity for those who are unable to see this.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
September 4, 2012
Sorry, John, I think Marxism is every bit as bogus as your libertarianism.

Both stupid, unworkable systems.
John Bronson
John Bronson
September 3, 2012
I am not part of the government. I only help pay for it. The government does not provide anything to the people that wasn't first taken from the people. Every adult is responsible for themselves. There is no such thing as a free lunch - someone has to pay for it. There is no moral justification for taking away the fruits of one man's labor, in order to give to another man. That's what I, and other free market capitalists believe.

What you believe in is Marxism:

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

Marxism has always failed, and always will fail.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
September 3, 2012
John, do you actually believe what you wrote or did you just throw up some words in an attempt to deflect the fact that you didn't build it all yourself?

"The idea that the government provides for people is leftist hogwash."

John, we are the government. The folks working in government offices are people hired by us to do stuff we want done. See if you can get your head around that concept.

If we had not formed a government to protect ourselves and to create the public infrastructure and rules/regulations we need to allow us to follow our dreams we would have had no chance of success.

You owe others. You stood on the shoulders of others to get where you are. Now man up.
John Bronson
John Bronson
September 3, 2012
Infrastructure is paid for directly, or by taxes on businesses and individuals. I can assure you that I have paid all of my infrastructure bills. And enough taxes to cover any government services I have used many times over.

It's good that your parents were responsible for you Bob. But I believe that IS their responsibility. You may not have paid for public schools as a child, but your parents probably did through taxes. You probably also paid for those water and electric services, and the public roads.

So yes, you did help build that infrastructure. You shouldn't have to pay for the entire cost of construction and operation, because you are not the only one using it.

Teachers, employees, etc. want to get paid. They won't work for nothing.

The idea that the government provides for people is leftist hogwash. Good luck to Obama trying to sell that one. He should stick to his teleprompter talking points.
lawrence elliott
lawrence elliott
September 3, 2012
Bob I think you are being a bit hard on old John-Bronson.

Keep in mind that he like millions of others in this country have been subjected to over 30 years of constant and never ending streams of very well thought out and very cleverly disguised propaganda stuffed into every orifice of their bodies. Multi-billion dollar media empires exist for no other reason than to lure the unsuspecting to obedient subjugation and economic slavery. They are trained to not only like being dominated by others but to actively recruit.

They are now part of a collective similar to Star Trek's "The Borg"

Note the code words they are trained to speak in?

"He is a conservative who blames the failure of Greece on it's liberal policies"

Note there is the bad and good. Blessed and evil.
*Note also that most of the followers cannot us punctuation properly as he is essentially saying "Greece on it is liberal policies"
But we will let that slide.

John-Bronson and the millions of others who have fallen for the propaganda find it virtually impossible to speak without using the code words.

Most of us who refuse to watch TV,listen to right wing radio or read the multitude of right wing rags, with their constant denigration of all things that can be labeled "liberal" vs a new religion being preached from all corners, generally spoken with reverence and obedience by true believers, "conservative",simply use logic and reasoning to sort out the good from the bad. We sort out the lies from the truth. In other words we are the UN-assimilated.

Resistance was not futile for us.

I'm probably far more conservative than most of these followers will ever be and quite likely far more liberal than they could ever wish to be. By original definitions.

So what does that make me?

If we don't blindly pledge allegiance to either one of these grammatical constructs, constructs developed for no other reason than to divide us into separate camps,could we be best described as normal?
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
September 3, 2012
And John, just to be fair, I'll go first.

I was born in a hospital which I did not build. I was delivered by a doctor whose education I did not provide nor whose salary I paid.

I rode home to a house I did not build on roads which I did not pave.

I grew up in a house and ate food provided by someone other than me. I was educated in public schools which were paid for by others and for which I paid nothing.

As I got older I began working and started paying some of my own way. But if it weren't for public roads, electricity, banks, and all sorts of other things I didn't build, there would likely have been no jobs for me.

I did work and support myself from my junior university year through many years of graduate work in universities which I did not build.

After graduation I held a number of jobs for organizations and institutions I did not build.

Then, about 30 years ago, I, too, started a business of my own. I "built it myself". With the aid of public roads, water, electricity and other systems. With the aid of some very good employees who were raised and educated by people who were not me.

I treated my employees well, gave them very good health and dental coverage and gave them the option of starting their own union. They decided that they had no need for a union as they had no complaints. We left the option open for them to form one if they wished in the future.

After about ten years I had grown my business "all by myself" to the point at which I had made enough money to sell out and retire.

I did it "all by myself". With the help of millions of others.

Now, tell me how you pulled off your success 100% on your own.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
September 3, 2012
OK, John, I think I understand you a bit better.

Now, I hope you realize that you're just mouthing right-wing BS with that "what Obama said". You must know that what he was talking about is the infrastructure, educational systems, and security that all of us paid for and that you likely used in order to build your business.

Or perhaps you built your business from the ground up without relying on roads to get you to work, public water and electricity, police to protect your property when you weren't around? If so, I would love to hear how anyone built their business (and got themselves born and educated) without using any, zero, nada pubic assistance.

If you are that rare individual who built your business 100% with your own wit and sweat, please tell us how. I've never heard of anyone, outside of someone who might make flint points, who has figured out how to do this.

Share your method please....
John Bronson
John Bronson
September 3, 2012
Bob, I am the owner of a business which I started from scratch 30 years ago. And regardless of what Obama says, I DID build that.

And I also have a friend from Greece. He is a conservative who blames the failure of Greece on it's liberal policies. High taxes, bloated government, unionized labor, massive public debt, government incompetence. His name is Panos Prevedouros. I can't say I blame the Greek people for evading taxes. Paying what the government wants would probably drive them all into personal bankruptcy.
lawrence elliott
lawrence elliott
September 3, 2012
John if you had a clue as to what you speak you would know that the reason for Greece's demise is clearly the same as ours:
xtremely corrupt political leaders who only support their cronies and any one in the country who has any money does their level best to avoid taxes and send wealth off shore while still siphoning off what little wealth gets created by those forced to work for nothing. The same ones who caused the corruption and dysfunctionality in the first place.

Just like in the US.

As luck would have it I happen to have a new neighbor who just escaped from Greece.

He tells me all the time that he sees now the same corruption and crony capitalism in the US as he saw in Greece.

He tells me he struggles to get his engineering and manufacturing business up and running.

Not due to excess taxes.
Not because of regulations.

Simply due to the fact that anything he can produce in the US can be built for a fraction in China and he sees no sense in just getting beat in a rigged game.




I'm not making this up but guess which country he is looking to emigrate to with his sister.

Germany

Why?

He says he likes the extent of democratic freedoms they have and he covets their extremely fine health system that they pay for but costs a fraction of what our for profit criminal system charges.

In addition he says Germany protects their domestic manufacturers since most Germans would rather have a job than live as poppers in a country that chooses to let China control their life.

Also like me he says he avoids folks who get all caught up in the liberal vs conservative pigeon holing because he says it 'rots the brain', does not reflect well on those who use the words and shows they respond obviously are simply responding to inputs created FOR them rather than from self reflection and carefully examining facts.

He says it in his own language but he translates.

Sounds cool
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
September 3, 2012
John, how about telling us how you earn(ed) your daily bread.

Are you the owner of a highly successful business, someone who inherited a fortune, or someone who spent their working years as an employee?
John Bronson
John Bronson
September 3, 2012
Greece is also heavily unionized, but they're not doing so well are they? The difference is that the Germans have a strong work ethic. The US used to have a strong work ethic as well. Before it got beat down by liberals intent on making everyone lazy, and dependant on the government.
lawrence elliott
lawrence elliott
September 2, 2012
"The fact is, Ford didn't need a bailout. And there are other successful auto manufacturers in the south"

Fact

Ford Motor Company had the financial resources needed partially because the heirs to the Ford fortune put up collateral.

In spite of that Ford would have quickly gone down had the vendor stream been gutted by bankruptcy of all three majors.

As to the foreign companies in the south not needing bailed out?

How about the fact that in the south the auto workers are paid rather poorly as compared to how previous UAW workers were paid.

Also those companies in the south are not burdened by the excessive health insurance costs forced on the three majors by America's insane desire to not have a single payer system like the more civilized countries of Europe. We prefer to let profit making companies pick who lives and dies while paying their CEO's off the profits their dead customers create for them.

Just take a look at the poverty that is rampant in the south.

The north,east and west subsidizes the south to the tune of about $1.50 in tax money for each $1 they pay in taxes.


Haven't you noticed the extensive welfare program known as the US military and its many bases and low wage 'defense' plants they gleefully welcome into their states.

I can just hear the roar of cheers from the south as Mitt RawMoney called for antagonizing Iran into another war for profit as he mindlessly resided over the televised mass insanity in Tampa passing for a political convention.

What is it about the unwarranted hatred of unions?

The one country in Europe that consistently kicks our ass as well as China's in manufactured goods is Germany.

Heavily unionized with wages far above the US average wage and they don't have millions begging for health care at the local emergency room.

Talk about socialized medicine.

You mindless Republicans still pay for it one way or the other.

You just deny it like most other facts you don't like.
John Bronson
John Bronson
September 2, 2012
Think Bob. If GM would have closed down, Ford would have gained market share. You still have the same number of car buyers regardless of what happens to GM.

And a German owned BMW, with a plant in the US provides more US jobs, than an American owned Vizio, with a plant in China. A good portion of GM sales, are for wholly foreign made cars with a GM badge on them.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
September 2, 2012
Spin it John. Keep that disinformation campaign alive and kicking.

Fact is, Ford was close to needing help and would have likely folded if its suppliers went under.

How many of those 'down south' manufactures are American car companies? BMW, Daimler-Benz, Honda Hyundai, Kia in West Point, Toyota and Nissan. Did I miss any other "American" car manufactures in the south?
John Bronson
John Bronson
September 2, 2012
The fact is, Ford didn't need a bailout. And there are other successful auto manufacturers in the south. The idea that the entire US auto industry would have gone down the drain is hogwash.

By keeping the UAW in place, Obama has guaranteed that GM will fail, losing taxpayers billions of dollars. GM's stock price and market share both continue to decline - those are the facts. The only real concern for Obama is that GM doesn't fail before the November election, so he can get the union vote.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
September 2, 2012
John - a simple search would bring you up to date.

If GM and Chrysler went down so would have many suppliers and many independent dealerships. If all of those businesses go down they take a lot of other businesses with them - the places where those people spend their income.

--

Larry - John seems to be posting from a basis of political faith, not facts....
lawrence elliott
lawrence elliott
September 2, 2012
John I'm curious

Why do you not divide the money for the GM/Chrysler bail out by the likely very reserved estimated total number of jobs potentially lost across all supply and service chains, being around 1 million.Of course that includes Ford who would have gone down the drain with everything else.

Oh I forgot

It would make your claim of $510,948/job saved totally irrelevant.

Seems truth is also going down the drain far too often.
John Bronson
John Bronson
September 2, 2012
The only private US employer with over 1 million workers is Wal-Mart. GM had 91,000 US workers before declaring bankruptcy, and 68,500 after. That's $510,948 of taxpayer money per job saved. Of course with more layoffs, and a lower stock price, that number will keep getting higher. GM is still losing market share.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Chapter_11_reorganization
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
September 2, 2012
Try 1.2 million jobs, John.

Ford was close to needing a bailout.

You are firing blanks - look up some facts please. There was no one who was going to save GM and Chrysler if they entered normal bankruptcy proceedings.
John Bronson
John Bronson
September 2, 2012
http://news.investors.com/politics-andrew-malcolm/070312-616849-gm-bailout-taxpayer-loss-rises-as-shares-fall.htm?p=full

$35 billion to save 91,000 jobs is not worth it, IMO. Perhaps Ford could have acquired GM's assets in a more normal bankruptcy proceeding?

Time will tell what happens to GM, but investors obviously don't see it as a good bet.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
September 2, 2012
The problem is not unions, it was the health care promise made to previous retirees. The bankruptcy wiped out that liability Those folks will now be covered by the PPACA and Medicare.

Cash for Clunkers was designed, in particular, to keep dealerships in business. To create some activity at the dealer level.

GM, under Romney's plane would have gone down and stayed down. There was no private money that was willing to stand GM back up after a bankruptcy. GM and Chrysler would have simply ceased to exists. If those two companies had gone under then many of the suppliers for Ford would have also gone bankrupt and Ford would have likely fallen as well.

GM is doing well. General Motors earned a record $7.6 billion profit last year, the highest profit in the company's 103-year history. This year profits are down due to slow European sales, but GM is still on route to showing a decent 2012 profit. GM is doing very well in China.
John Bronson
John Bronson
September 2, 2012
"Milankovitch cycles explain some, perhaps most, of the changes in Earth temperature in the past. They do not explain the very rapid warming the Earth has experienced in the last 150 years."

Your question above pertained to the last 20,000 years, not the last 150. You also suggested that the glacial period forcings were somehow "going away". There is no evidence to suggest this.
John Bronson
John Bronson
September 2, 2012
"You're right about it being unlikely we'll hear much about 'cash for clunkers'. That was a fairly small part of saving the American car industry. But you can count on hearing about how PBO worked to save our car companies and how Romney was in favor of letting them fail and giving the car business to foreign companies."

4 of the top 5 best sellers in "cash for clunkers" were foreign made. Chrysler is foreign owned (Fiat). And GM still went bankrupt, even after the bailout. In order to save the US auto industry for good, you're going to have to bust the UAW, or slap a huge import tax on imported cars. Romney would bust the unions. Obama's solution was for the government to hand out money to GM. This was a short term fix. GM will be back asking for more money soon.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
September 2, 2012
Sorry John. You're not going to make it as a climate scientist....

Milankovitch cycles explain some, perhaps most, of the changes in Earth temperature in the past. They do not explain the very rapid warming the Earth has experienced in the last 150 years.

Prior to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution we were on our way to a distant future ice age, not extreme heat. That's where the natural cycles were taking us.
John Bronson
John Bronson
September 2, 2012
"No, John, science does not accept the idea that present warming is due to Milankovitch cycles. Climate scientist are in close to 100% agreement that present warming is due mainly to human-produced CO2 from fossil fuel burning with a goodly dose of other greenhouse gases thrown into the mix."

The current warm period (Holocene), began some 12,000 years ago. This was obviously not caused by humans burning fossil fuels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene

Also, interglacial periods were shown to exist long before the current period. These were not caused by humans burning fossil fuels either. Milankovitch cycles are the best match for the actual ice core measurements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacial
ANONYMOUS
September 1, 2012
Bob writes in comment #91:
"Stephen - "If you were a congressman from the South, which has very poor wind resources, you might look upon the wind PTC as a subsidy program your region partially funds but does not benefit from at all."

True. If you are a climate change denier."

Opposing the PTC is not tantamount to denying climate change because the amount of wind power promoted by the PTC only has a trivial influence on atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Congressmen are elected in large measure to promote the interests of their state, and generous Federal subsidies to states such as IA that see lots of wind production is of little benefit to those in the southern US. Passing legislation involves compromise, and this is something that the current administration isn't very good at. In the early years Obama had huge majorities in both houses of Congress and could have gotten a fairly large energy package through even on a party line vote, but he wasted his energy on an ineffectual cap and trade program and the health care regulation. A multiyear PTC, some energy efficiency regulations, some increased R&D, and a few other things bundled into a modest energy bill could have easily been signed into law promptly in 2009 (and he could have returned in 2010 with additional measures), but Obama overreached. Even now a significant boost to renewables would pass the Congress if is was bundled with some sweeteners such as passage of the keystone pipeline and drilling in ANWAR. If Obama had spent another decade in the senate before becoming President he might have learned the art of actually getting legislation through the Congress without spawning a massive backlash that sweeps a ruling party out of office.
Steven
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
September 1, 2012
Stephen - "If you were a congressman from the South, which has very poor wind resources, you might look upon the wind PTC as a subsidy program your region partially funds but does not benefit from at all."

True. If you are a climate change denier.

--

You might want to review the Democratic majority numbers enjoyed by LBJ and Clinton in his early years as opposed to what PBO has had to work with. Throw in the change in how the filibuster has been used in recent history.

--

You're right about it being unlikely we'll hear much about 'cash for clunkers'. That was a fairly small part of saving the American car industry. But you can count on hearing about how PBO worked to save our car companies and how Romney was in favor of letting them fail and giving the car business to foreign companies.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
September 1, 2012
No, John, science does not accept the idea that present warming is due to Milankovitch cycles. Climate scientist are in close to 100% agreement that present warming is due mainly to human-produced CO2 from fossil fuel burning with a goodly dose of other greenhouse gases thrown into the mix.

You can start your reading here....

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/01/25/milankovitch-cycles/

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Milankovitch.html
John Bronson
John Bronson
September 1, 2012
"1) What is the evidence that we are nearing the end of a warming leg of the 20,000 year glacier cycle?

2) What is driving that cycle? What physical force has been warming the planet for the last 20,000 years and why is it now going away?"

The most accepted theory is the Milankovitch Cycles. The evidence is in the ice core measurements.
ANONYMOUS
August 31, 2012
Bob writes in comment #63: "PBO got some clunkers off the highways. "

I bet we do not hear President Obama talking a lot about the "cash for clunkers" program during the election season!

Steven
ANONYMOUS
August 31, 2012
Bob writes in comment #59:
"I hope you realize that the wind PTC and renewable incentives are getting jerked around by Republicans in Congress. Let's make sure fault is placed at the feet of those who have earned it."

If you were a congressman from the South, which has very poor wind resources, you might look upon the wind PTC as a subsidy program your region partially funds but does not benefit from at all. If the administration was a little better at horse trading they would have gotten a multiyear PTC passed in the 1st year of their term. The President has proven to be a very inexperienced politician and this has greatly hindered his efforts to get anything done. LBJ and Clinton knew how to cut deals, they enjoyed the art of politics, and they liked politicians; not of these statements is true of Obama. Even now, there is a decent chance a multiyear PTC could pass the house if it is designed with a 4-6 year phase out.

Steven
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
August 31, 2012
And Mark, I really, really want you to answer these questions:

1) What is the evidence that we are nearing the end of a warming leg of the 20,000 year glacier cycle?

2) What is driving that cycle? What physical force has been warming the planet for the last 20,000 years and why is it now going away?

These are really important questions and need good, science-based answers. Please, no hand-waving....
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
August 31, 2012
Mark -

What is the evidence that we are nearing the end of a warming leg of the 20,000 year glacier cycle? What is driving that cycle? What physical force has been warming the planet for the last 20,000 years and why is it now going away?

Man is too puny? Do you realize that we've covered 42% of the Earth's land area with cities, farms, roads and other infrastructure? That we've changed the course and flow of major rivers? That we've removed mountains in a tiny, tiny fraction of the amount of time that it took natural forces to create them?

(Cars will never replace horses. Man will never fly. Computers will never replace typewriters. CDs will never replace vinyl. Digital will never replace film. Fossil fuels will be our energy sources for the rest of our lifetimes. Hummm...., do I see a pattern?)
MARK SMITH
MARK SMITH
August 31, 2012
Bob
1)Nobody knows what President Romney would do because he will say anything.
2) The only thing changing for certain with the climate is that we are nearing the end of the warming leg of the 20,000 year glacier cycle. Except for possible deforestation and nuclear annihilation, Man is too insignificant to seriously affect the climate.
3)I do like clean air and the general idea of sustainable energy, but fossil fuels are here to stay for your lifetime. Come down to earth.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
August 31, 2012
Mark - Romney has been getting some significant push-back from Republican governors whose states are benefiting from wind farms.

I don't think he could get away will killing renewables, those industries are already too large and are playing significant roles in many states.

The danger of Romney is that he would likely do nothing to assist future movement off of fossil fuels. The climate is changing much faster than anyone predicted and we can't afford to loose time. We need to speed things up and greatly speed things up, not put our energy into burning more fossil fuel.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
August 31, 2012
The Toyota Prius was introduced in 1997, sold 323 units and 17,653 units in 1998.

First quarter, 2012 Toyota sold 247,230 Prius hybrids. That's about 1 million per year and it makes the Prius the number three selling car in the world. Prius sales have grown at a >30% rate over the years.

Sales can be remarkably slow when something "unusual" is introduced but sales rates can accelerate if demand is present.

The GM Volt sold 7,671 units in its first year.

The Nissan Leaf was released in December 2010 and more than 35,000 Leafs were sold worldwide by August 2012. Sales numbers were suppressed by the inability of the factory to deliver enough units to meet customer demand.

It takes a little time for people to understand new technology. They need to see that it works and figure out whether it will work for them.

Again, I'm guessing that ranges will be up and prices down a couple of years from now. By that time a lot of people will be comfortable with the idea of driving with electricity and will understand how much cheaper EVs are to operate. If I'm right EV/PHEV sales will soar.



--
In first place was the Toyota Corolla with 300,800 units sold. The Ford Focus was in second place.
MARK SMITH
MARK SMITH
August 31, 2012
The Romney "plan" is not a plan, but a wish list of Republican ideas to counter Obama's. A President Romney might be able to accomplish one at most. As sensitive as Republican legislators are to financial pressure from business, I don't see how they would be able to kill sustainable energy projects. Most of these projects benefit Republican-voting farmers.
MARK SMITH
MARK SMITH
August 31, 2012
When I wrote that EV's save 30% on energy cost, I was referring to a report of real life tests done with electric buses. I can't follow all these numbers from Bob, Mike, John, and Larry.
Numbers of electric cars will increase gradually, but these large percentages of growth mean little because the base is so small.
In case you don't know....big vehicles like buses, garbage trucks, and mining vehicles are rapidly changing to diesel-electric-battery because the operational cost saving is significant.
In a city like Chicago fuel cost saving could be 30% or $10million.
Fleet testing with charging stations is in the works. Until the results are pubished, none of these theoretical numbers mean much.
Mike Holly
Mike Holly
August 31, 2012
Romney Plan

1 Energy Independence

a oil drilling and gas fracking - continue deep water (spills) and dumping poisons near groundwater

b coal and nuclear - loosen environmental and safety laws

c renewables – benefits from streamlining regulations on fossil and nuclear fuels (???)

2 Education - educating young people better for dirty jobs

3 Trade agreements - walk away if Chinese lenders don't stop cheating

4 Deficit - cut spending for the poor

5 Small Business

a regulations - repeal Obamacare, banking and environmental controls

b taxes – would reduce tax rates but unclear how he will raise needed revenues (Ryan says by closing loopholes but Romney got rich using them)

c health care - reduce costs by denying malpractice awards, use of high tech

d big business/monopolies - no reforms on energy, banking, housing, health care, etc.

NOT MY IDEA OF GOOD COUNTRY!
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
August 31, 2012
No, not at all. I think the data shows that PHEV owners average about 1,000 miles per gallon. It's just that some people will need, or think they need, the ability to 'go long' and PHEVs will fill that need until EVs get closer to 200 mile range with ~20 minute recharging.

Now I don't have any dogs in this fight. I'm invested in none of it, except for companies like GM and Ford being part of the thousands of stocks in my index funds. What I want is for us to get off fossil fuels quickly and I really don't care whether it's EVs, biofuel or hydrogen. But the race does interest me.

I see EVs way out in front, for the reasons I've laid out in my numerous posts. I think we're short years from affordable, decent range EVs. I think hydrogen and biofuel have significant unsolved problems that put them far behind right now.

Obviously a breakthrough could put either hydrogen or biofuel into the lead, but one doesn't predict based on unknowns. You go with the facts you've got and right now EVs show me the most promise.

Whomever gets there first is likely to lock down the victory. If we could buy an EV with about 175 mile range for only slightly more than an ICEV I suspect the race would end.

EVs cost roughly "$1/gallon" to operate. Their charging infrastructure is almost in place.

Biofuel could use existing infrastructure if it was 'drop in' but in order to knock EVs out of place it would have to sell for considerably less than $1/gallon. There are other costs and inconveniences with liquid fuels.

Hydrogen has, IMO, an even rougher road ahead. First, we'd have to invent a way to make hydrogen for well under $1/gallon and far enough under $1 to pay for the generation and distribution infrastructure.

I think we should continue researching biofuel and hydrogen. They might be great niche fuels, and something miraculous might be discovered. But I think their odds of becoming our main transportation energy technologies are low.
John Bronson
John Bronson
August 31, 2012
"Hydrogen might have a range/speed of fueling advantage. But they won't be any better than PHEVs for those who need to drive long distances often."

So you're actually a fan of those big greedy oil companies after all eh? Don't you know that CO2 is a pollutant?
lawrence elliott
lawrence elliott
August 30, 2012
@BobWallace

You know I think it was Peggy Noonan or some such who coined the phrase "Ronald Reagan wears a Teflon suit as nothing bad that he does seems to stick to him"

Well now we have Mitt RawMoney

Not only is every phrase from his mouth as slippery as Teflon but more importantly the suit in his case is quite empty, NADA! NOTHING! BUPKISS!

I've seen more substance in a bag of white bread. An empty one with holes in it.

So sad
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
August 30, 2012
Back to the original topic. Just listened to Mitt's acceptance speech.

He's got no plans. He's got no ideas. He's just running for president, for Pete's sake....
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
August 30, 2012
No, John, you don't understand how EVs work. You plug them into the grid. Once the grid gets a little smarter then EVs will get a "grab some of this extra electricity" signal. Because EVs are a dispatchable load the problem of occasional oversupply from wind goes away.

And here's why hydrogen doesn't do that job. When you build a generating plant it needs to run a lot of the time in order to pay for itself. It will not be economically feasible to build water crackers and have them sit idle for most of the 24 hour day and even skip days of operation waiting for some extra wind. Since EVs will need less than two hours of feed per day they can wait out the other 22+ which water crackers can't afford to do. Many EVs will even be able to skip charge days.

Volt sales are up 272% over last year. Nissan Leaf and GM Volt greatly outsold Toyota and Honda hybrids on a first year to first year basis.

It's now the time of year when car factories shut down and retool for the next year model.

Hydrogen might have a range/speed of fueling advantage. But they won't be any better than PHEVs for those who need to drive long distances often. EV ranges will get to the "good enough" level to allow one to drive a 500 mile day with only a couple of ~20 minute recharge stops.

For someone who makes only a few all day trips per year the large operational savings will make an extra stop a few times a year a non-issue. In fact, they'll spend much less time stopping for the occasional recharge than hydrogen drivers will spend at the gas station for their weekly fill-ups.
John Bronson
John Bronson
August 30, 2012
"Electricity to hydrogen to electricity from a fuel cell is also very energy wasteful."

Wind energy that's not used at all is many times more wasteful.

"I don't understand what you mean by " I don't see how you're going to recharge EVs without the grid","

Sounds like you don't understand the fact that a large amount
of wind energy is being lost, because there is no way to store it. Even if everyone drove an EV, you would still have a large amount of wind energy going to waste. More wind power installed only makes the situation worse.


"As someone who has charged an EV directly from solar for several years now and having several friends who do the same"

I doubt if you and your friends are going to start much of a trend in that regard. EV sales to date have been quite modest. Note that GM recently idled their Volt plant. Hydrogen vehicles can actually match gas/diesel in range, and refueling time.
lawrence elliott
lawrence elliott
August 30, 2012
" I don't see how you're going to recharge EVs without the grid"

As someone who has charged an EV directly from solar for several years now and having several friends who do the same ,and designs and installs PV/EV charging stations this statement is similar to one saying that "there is no gravity" or "but the sun actually does rise in the west and sets in the west" and water does flow uphill.

When in any battle of wits always choose carefully your targets and be certain to enter the battle well armed.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
August 30, 2012
You need to read that carefully. 82 years of "technically recoverable" is not the same as economically recoverable. That old EROEI problem.

Then there's the "at today's consumption rates" qualifier. Again, we are rapidly replacing coal with NG generation. Doubling what we were burning a few years ago cuts the "lifetime" supply into a shorter number of year supply. Changing a lot of our transportation takes us to the end of NG even quicker.

When you did your 60% efficiency for fuel cells you left out the energy loss in the NG -> hydrogen process. Overall about 60% of the energy in NG is lost from well to electricity out of the fuel cell.

Electricity to hydrogen to electricity from a fuel cell is also very energy wasteful.

EVs are extremely efficient. About 10% loss in battery charging and then about 10% loss from battery to motion.

I don't understand what you mean by " I don't see how you're going to recharge EVs without the grid", the grid is in place and ready to charge 72% of all American cars right now were they to be instantly turned into EVs.

Current wind on the grid would be used to charged EVs. EVs can be used as dispatchable load which makes them an ideal partner for wind and solar on the grid. They can be used for peak shaving and can drop out when demand challenges supply. The average EV will need only around 1.5 hours of charge time per day. That gives great flexibility for grid management.

More EVs on the grid means that peak hour electricity will likely become less expensive. Wind farms will have a nighttime/off-peak market for product which will make it financially attractive to add more turbines to the grid. More turbines means more cheap wind during peak demand hours.
John Bronson
John Bronson
August 30, 2012
100 years supply according to President Obama:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/47279959/The_Math_Behind_the_100_Year_Natural_Gas_Supply_Debate

"Proven Reserves" is a term that confuses a lot of people, especially peak oil doomers. URR is the number that matters.

EVs will no doubt have a market. What hydrogen offers is longer range, and shorter refueling times.

Natural gas in an ICE engine is only about 20% efficient. Fuel cells are upwards of 60%. It's also possible to sequester carbon from a reforming plant, which would not be possible from the vehicle itself.

Excess wind energy means the grid cannot use it. I don't see how you're going to recharge EVs without the grid. Some wind plants are already producing hydrogen.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
August 30, 2012
What's your source for a >100 year supply John?

Is it based on probable and proven supply or is there a more speculative portion? And what burn rate was used to determine the time line?

(Perhaps you didn't notice. There are already a bunch of EVs and PHEVs on the market. There will be a lot more by 2015.)


Hydrogen can be produced by natural gas, but that's kind of dumb. Just run cars on NG and avoid the large conversion losses.

Excess wind power can also charge EV batteries. And that power gets used a lot more efficiently than cracking water, distributing hydrogen and then burning the hydrogen in fuel cells. The hydrogen storage system is pretty danged lossey. You're tossing away a lot of electricity that could power cars a lot of miles.
John Bronson
John Bronson
August 30, 2012
The US has over 100 years of natural gas reserves.

What auto manufacturers are gearing up for is hydrogen fuel cells. Probably by 2015, you'll see these vehicles on the market.

Hydrogen can be produced from natural gas, or excess wind power, etc.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
August 30, 2012
I really doubt we have enough natural gas to run our car fleet for more than a few years. We might be below 20 years now with all the additional use for electrical generation. "Proved" and "probable" reserves were 22 years last year assuming a 2010 burn rate. Any supplies greater than that fall into the "possible" and "speculative" categories.

Cost? I took a quick look and found an article about a 2013 Chevy truck that will run on NG. The claim is that fuel will cost 12% less per mile. And right now NG is incredibly cheap in the US, when we burn through the current supply glut the price will rise. The article states that it will cost $11,000 more to manufacture a NG vehicle. (That might drop with larger volume manufacturing.)

http://pilogic.net/2012/05/01/natural-gas-vehicles-may-be-our-future-not-hybrids-or-electric/

I don't see NG as an answer. Electricity is so much cheaper, has a much lower CO2 footprint, and we'll never run out. The price of EVs will drop, I expect we'll see drops with the 2013 models. And ranges will rise. Again I expect we'll see increases with the 2013 models.

There's about zero chance of the US Congress passing a law that forces car owners to buy a particular type of vehicle - electric or natural gas. Doing so would be political suicide. The change in the US will have to be largely market driven. Some portion of buyers will be willing to pay something extra for lower CO2 driving, but a large majority will buy based on price and "appeal".
Jens Stubbe
Jens Stubbe
August 30, 2012
#49 Bob

http://www.slideshare.net/Oeko-Institut/environmental-impacts-of-electric-mobility-and-interactions-with-the-electricity-sector-in-germany

Natural gas could replace gasolin for cars. The cars may cost a little more to produce but they will run far cheaper. The suggestion I made would only imply that new cars are fitted with Natural gas so all americans can carry on as usual unless they buy a new car, which will be a lot cheaper to run.

The by product of running on Natural gas to save you money would be that you support domestic production, domestic economy and reduce CO2 emissions.

The only problem is that Natural gas cars have lesser reach and further between gas stations. Both can change if you choose optimum energy performance cars and legislate for Natural gas.

US economy would improve dramatically.

http://www.ngvc.org/pdfs/FAQs_Converting_to_NGVs.pdf

If the infrastructure improve more americans would choose to run on natural gas.

Another thing all countries could do to reduce gasolin consumption is to require gas stations to install accurate tire pressure measurement equipment and nitrogen tire pumps. Just using professional equipment like this would improve mileage for all US cars. http://www.gonitrotire.com/energy_efficient_links.php

It is an absolute no brainer. Gas stations who want to sell gasolin should by legislation be obliged to provide adequate support to reduce consumption including Nitrogen pumps. For any American it would just save money for tires and gasolin along with providing with better active security because tires with preserved quality and correct pressure secure faster braking and better handling.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
August 29, 2012
It's poorly written software. The powers running this site have been notified and haven't fixed it. Edit once more and put in some 'Enter's. I think that works. eta: No it doesn't....
lawrence elliott
lawrence elliott
August 29, 2012
Anyone know why editing a previously posted comment deletes all paragraph formatting?

Moderators?
Any useful advice?
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
August 29, 2012
Anon, perhaps you were absent the day when they talked about "both houses have to approve" and "filibuster". What has been done to improve things in during the last two years have been done largely by the power of the presidency. He's gotten no cooperation on solving our problems from the Party of NO!.

And actually the CO2 drop is only partly due to increased natural gas.

In 2007 coal provided 48.5% of our electricity. NG 21.6%
In 2011 coal provided 42.2% of our electricity. NG 24.8%

Since NG burning creates roughly 50% as much CO2 as coal the 3.2% extra NG consumption probably accounts for about 1.6% of observed 7.7% decrease in CO2.

And, yes, we certainly can attribute some/most of the drop in CO2 to PBO. It was his EPA that has caused coal plants to shut down. Cheap natural gas helped. When utilities looked at the cost of bringing coal plants into EPA compliance they decided that it made more sense to build NG plants. (I suspect they are looking forward to using those NG plants as in-fill for even cheaper renewables.)

PBO got some clunkers off the highways. And he's assisted wind and solar installations. And he's worked on efficiency.
lawrence elliott
lawrence elliott
August 29, 2012
'Last time I checked Democrats have control of both the White House and the Senate. Yet you seem to feel House Republicans are the problem? >p Study any American civics lately Mr Anonymous? The President proposes and the Congress disposes The Senate is just an elite old boys club that serves as a spoiler so that if by some miracle a good piece of legislation gets passed by a bumbling Democratic Congress (forget about the Republicans in congress since they are by any measure or standard not fit to even be allowed in the halls of congress yet alone legislate)the Senate can then 'vote' to defeat the legislation. This shell game is set up so that the American Sheeple can feel that at least the bumblers made a valiant effort and deserve a second chance. And third and fourth. It's a rigged game and always has been The only way it keeps itself in perpetual play is the American Sheeple are for the most part masochists with an overabundance of self loathing. Can you give me a better explanation for why they continue to vote in people to represent them that a better class of people would not even let sit on their front porch yet alone invite them in for tea and cake. It's a classic case of the Stockholm Syndrome. (look that one up anonymous. Do you good to read a little once in awhile). Last I checked your hero's in Congress have an approval rating just south of 12%. What does that say about those who vote these losers in time after time? Yeah Anonymous I suppose 'your team' 'your guys': they're better than mine. No matter any facts to the contrary you'll just keep pulling that lever against your own self interest. Then when you go home you can tell everyone you did your civic duty. How nice of you! And what does any of this have to do with renewable energy or lack of its advancement? Allot more than most people are willing to admit.
ANONYMOUS
August 29, 2012
"I hope you realize that the wind PTC and renewable incentives are getting jerked around by Republicans in Congress. Let's make sure fault is placed at the feet of those who have earned it."

Bob_Wallace,

Last time I checked Democrats have control of both the White House and the Senate. Yet you seem to feel House Republicans are the problem? As for the recent reductions in US CO2 emissions, this is due to more widespread use of cheap (fracked) natural gas, and lower domestic energy consumption due to the economic recession. Neither of these can be attributed to the Democrats or President Obama's policy intentions.
David Carl
David Carl
August 29, 2012
Bob-Wallace, so you did not read the article? This is the first sentence, Mitt Romney sets an ambitious goal with his pledge to achieve U.S. energy independence by 2020.

This is what you said in post 50. Why 2020? Because at some point someone, possibly me, started talking about that date. It has jack to do with who will be president.

It has everything to do with who is president as it is Romney's plan that can only be implemented if Romney is president. That is the point of the article.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
August 29, 2012
I hope you realize that the wind PTC and renewable incentives are getting jerked around by Republicans in Congress. Let's make sure fault is placed at the feet of those who have earned it.

And, yes, a Romney presidency is likely to reverse some of the progress made, or at lease slow future progress.

"Baby steps" - do you think that is fair given a doubling of fleet MPG and accelerated installation of renewables? The fact that US CO2 emissions have fallen to a 20 year low, that buckets of federal money has been invested in creating new EV battery technology, that scientists are back in control of government science?

And if you are disappointed in the amount of progress made to date (most of us would love to have seen more) is it in your best interest to dump on your best hope and increase the odds of Romney gaining office? You think it a good idea to throw stuff in the way of your team's running back when he's trying to make it to the goal line?
George Reynoldson
George Reynoldson
August 29, 2012
Yes your additions to my "case" are well appreciated, and yes, the grid is getting less carbon intensive even while wind PTC and renewable incentives keep getting jerked around. And yes, the new CAFE standard is also an improvement that the Obama administration gets credit for. But my concerns of more White House disingenuous continuity is that a Romney White House with a Jack Gerard chief of staff (as has been rumored) and an Ayn Rand objectivism VP could even be able to reverse these Obama baby steps toward more a decarbonized economy.

Recent Arctic sea ice data, an all-Greenland ice sheet melt and a three-year-extreme weather spike in events not to mention peak oil indicators would suggest that more mere tokenism is a catastrophic threat to our children's future.

Certainly, our best hope cannot be more of the same till 2016.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
August 29, 2012
How about putting this in your case -

"Two recently-issued federal studies underscore the dramatic growth in electrical generation from geothermal, solar, wind, and other renewable energy sources during the first three and one-half years of the Obama Administration.

According to the latest issue of EIA's "Electric Power Monthly " with data through to June 30, 2012, non-hydro renewable sources (i.e., biomass, geothermal, solar, wind) provided 5.76% of net electrical generation for the first half of 2012. This represents an increase of 10.97% compared to the same period in 2011. Solar increased by 97.2% while wind grew 16.3% and geothermal by 0.2%."

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/08/renewable-energy-sees-explosive-growth-during-obama-administration

And -

"In a bid to cut carbon dioxide emissions in half by 2025, the Obama administration has introduced regulations that will require new fleets of cars and trucks to average 54.5 miles per gallon fuel economy over the next thirteen years.

The gas mileage requirements, which can pass without needing congressional approval, are planned to be put into place gradually in the beginning and become stricter by 2017. These requirements build on previous regulations introduced by the current administration to have cars and trucks average 35 miles to the gallon by 2016.

Fox News reports that President Obama declared the new standards to "represent the single most important step" taken thus far to reduce United States dependency on foreign oil.

These regulations, which are called "Corporate Average Fuel Economy," will urge automakers to lower mileage by using "credits" for selling natural gas and electric vehicles, changing air conditioning fluids to options that are less hazardous to the environment and improving aerodynamics on vehicles...."

Sounds to me if someone is listening us....
George Reynoldson
George Reynoldson
August 29, 2012
"Government no longer listens to the people." --- top Barry Goldwater aid - 1980.


Are energy speeches disingenuous by design? AGW too?


Maybe LBJ's pro-oil depletion credit and science guys actually had it right in 1965!. Based on his 1965 President's Science Advisory Committee's report, Restoring the Quality of Our Environment, a full outline of AGW and it consequences, they suggested geoengineering to mitigate CO2 dangers. An LBJ speech then concluded that "this generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through.... a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels" - LBJ - 1965. Report is available online.


Is White House energy disingenuity fully institutionalized?



"Let this be our national goal: "in the year 1980, the United States will not be dependent on any other country for the energy we need to provide our jobs, to heat our homes, and to keep our transportation moving." - Richard Nixon - 1974


"initiated to increase energy supply to cut demand, and provide new standby emergency programs to achieve the independence we want by 1985." - Gerald Ford - 1975


"Beginning this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977—never," - Jimmy Carter - 1979


"Today we make a major step with the Energy Independence and Security Act. We make a major step toward reducing our dependence on oil, confronting global climate change, expanding the production of renewable fuels and giving future generations of our country a nation that is stronger, cleaner and more secure." – George W. Bush - 2007.


"energy independence by 2020…."is not some pie in the sky kind of thing. This is a real, achievable objective." - Mitt Romney


"energy independence by 2020…."is not some pie in the sky kind of thing... a real, achievable objective." - Mitt Romney 2012

Can I rest my case?
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
August 29, 2012
Let's do some math with Bill's numbers...

0.25kWh per mile and electricity at $0.732/kWh = $0.018 per mile.

$4 per gallon gasoline, let's assume a 3% rate of inflation between now and 2020. That would make gas $5.07 per gallon.

$5.07/gallon and 50MPG = $0.101 per mile. 5.6 times more expensive.

But gas rising only 3% when tens of millions new drivers coming on line in China, India and the rest of the rapidly developing world? How about 6% per year for oil?

$6.38/gallon and 50MPG = $0.128 per mile. 7.1 times more expensive.

--

The radio just stated that gas prices are up 23% from last month. Hurricane and refinery fires in CA and Venezuela. Obviously the gas currently in gas station tanks was purchased at lower prices, but pump prices are soaring.

Anyone besides me tired of getting rogered by Mitt's fossil fuel friends?
William Fitch
William Fitch
August 29, 2012
Hi: Most of your EV's get around 4 miles per KWH, depending on driving conditions. Where I live, PPL just lowered their generation rate to $.0732/KWH. The gen charge is the amount PPL will pay me when I produce more than I use. So my cost per mile of driving an EV from my PV and wind would reflect this loss of PPL revenue. Take note some posters, if you think gas will be $4/Gal by 2020 and EV's will only have a range of 100 miles...LOL... Even if the fast track Dystopian's R&R turn planet earth into a pin cushion, when you have two curves (Rising O&G cost VS falling RE cost) heading towards each other at accelerating rates, the change can occur astonishing fast as noted by BW. The question is whether ONLY the .001% will be the ones able to enjoy the fruits of live on this planet.
Better learn how to use a bow.....

.....Bill
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
August 29, 2012
Just following up on my statement that the stock market, American business, does better under Democratic presidents...

"$1,000 invested in a hypothetical fund that tracks the Standard & Poor's 500 Index (SPX) only when Democrats are in the White House would have been worth $10,920 at the close of trading yesterday.

That's more than nine times the dollar return an investor would have realized from following a similar strategy during Republican administrations.

A $1,000 stake invested in a fund that followed the S&P 500 under Republican presidents, starting with Richard Nixon, would have grown to $2,087 on the day George W. Bush left office."

And here's another little fun fact...

"Some of the difference may stem from the fact that every Republican president since at least the end of World War II has faced a recession during his first term in office, Stovall said. Nine of 11 recessions that began since 1945 -- and seven of eight since Kennedy ran for president in 1960 --started with Republicans in the Oval Office."

Sounds to me that Republicans aren't very good when it comes to managing the economy and making businesses grow. Perhaps they're too bush helping out a small group of very rich friends and letting the country go to hell....

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-22/stocks-return-more-with-dem-in-white-house-bgov-barometer.html

You really, really rich? Romney's your guy. He'll cut your taxes and help you sell your oil.

Part of the other 99.9%? Might want to do some objective thinking about your self interests.

Higher fuel prices work for you? Or might you be better off if a lot of people were driving with electricity and making gas cheaper for those who continue to use it?

How about reaching senior status with no Social Security or Medicare/Medicaid to keep you from dying in the gutter? You sure your stocks and real estate investments would survive another deep recession like the one Bush just gave us?
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
August 29, 2012
Mark - "To Bob: the fuel cost saving for elec veh is about 30%."

An EV uses about 0.31kWh per mile. The average cost of electricity in the US is around $0.12/kWh.

$0.037 per mile.

The most efficient cars get about 50MPG. Gas is selling for $4/gallon (more where I live).

$0.08 per mile. A bit more than twice the cost of electricity.

It is very likely that EV drivers will not pay the average rate for electricity. Most will charge with off-peak electricity at a lower TOU rate. Eight cents per kWh is more likely than twelve. That takes the per mile $0.02/mile. One fourth the cost of driving a 50 MPG gasmobile on $4/gallon gas.

And I didn't include the cost of oil changes and more frequent brake rebuilds which makes the fraction even less than 1/4th.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
August 29, 2012
conroyt - Do not forget that the reason that debt has risen under President Obama is that President Bush crashed the economy.

There is a myth that Republican presidents are better at reducing debt. The federal debt as a percentage of gross domestic product rose greatly under Reagan and Bush I, fell under Clinton, rose again under Bush II. The facts run counter to the myth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.jpg

Will PBO get things turned around in a possible second term? There's no way to know. We live in an incredibly interconnected world economy, if Europe has more major problems it could hurt us. If Republicans hang on to control of the House and refuse to do anything to help America we could have continued problems.

Would a Romney make things better? It's very hard to tell since he refuses to tell us what he would do. Would he borrow and invest to get the country going again? I'm not sure he would. Would he and Ryan cut tax rates for rich people like them and put us in worst shape? I suspect they would.

(BTW, there's also a myth that Republicans are better for business than are Democrats. You should look at the performance of the stock market under different presidents. Businesses have been much more successful with a Democratic president.)
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
August 29, 2012
David, there is nothing in #35 about being energy independent by 2020. I was talking about the race between new liquid fuels and EVs/PHEVs.

I do not see a widely available liquid fuel selling for $1/gallon by 2020.

I do suspect we will have very affordable EVs by 2020 and running on electricity is like driving with $1/gallon gas.

Why 2020? Because at some point someone, possibly me, started talking about that date. It has jack to do with who will be president. The development of EVs will continue even if we get an anti-renewable president like Mitt. The rest of the world is on track and will stay on track even if the US decides to go backwards once more.

I can easily see all car manufactures selling EVs/PHEVs below cost or at almost no profit in order to meet fleet requirements. American car manufactures have done that before, introducing crappy efficient models and selling them cheap in order to sell very profitable large cars and pickups.

If they sell EVs/PHEVs at low/no profit or even a loss, I'm fine with that. We need to manufacture large numbers of EVs/PHEVs in order to get the prices down. If you've ever torn down and rebuilt a gas engine and then read the materials list for EV batteries you'd know that it is highly likely that EVs will be cheaper than the exact same model car with a gas engine. We just have to get manufacturing levels up in order to reach economy of scale.

Not charge and drive on $4/gallon gas when you could be driving on "$1/gallon" electricity? Not even multi-millionaire Jay Leno does that.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
August 29, 2012
jens - I'll dig the studies out for you later. Here's a piece that briefly summarizes them...

http://phys.org/news199715831.html

"Just terminate the permit to sell gasolin and diesel driven cars and enforce that all gas stations fit natural gas infrastructure or close down. This can be done in months effectively"

This is totally impractical. Americans would never permit their vehicle fuel source to be terminated by the government.

What we have to do is replace the present with a better future. EVs are more enjoyable to drive (according to every report I've read). Plugging in, especially just parking over a charge "turtle" will be preferred to going to the gas station and pumping gas. Avoiding oil changes and reducing the rate of other repairs will be enjoyed. If we get the price of owning/operating an EV/PHEV down to an acceptable level the market will switch on its own.

As for moving power long distances, it can be done, that's not in argument. Whether it makes sense to ship power long distances or create it from local sources is an economic decision.
lawrence elliott
lawrence elliott
August 29, 2012
@conroyt

You are of course not serious!

Right?

"rhetoric replaced by knowledge and thoughtfulness anologous to what Paul Ryan brings to the budget debate when/if they win.

I'm certain you have read his budget to make such a statement.
Right?

You are aware of the FACT (I know facts get in the way of the zealous obedience Republicans have to their orthodoxy) that this 'Wunderkind's' so called budget will in FACT add over 7 trillion to the nation debt. Does not even make an attempt to balance the budget till you and I are long dead. These are FACTS acknowledged even by the most non partisan economists.

No increases in taxes on the only one's who have all the money.

No cuts to the bloated economic black hole ironically known as the defense budget. (defending who from what? A fourth mansion rather than a third for some contractor making another useless killing machine?)

No support for renewable's or in fact anything that would benefit our country in any way.

We had eight years of a similar script shoved down our gullets by the Bush Crime Family.

Results?

The steaming pile of excrement we now find ourselves in.

I'm absolutely certain you have heard this before but

"the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result"

Now please tell us all that you were only joking.

Otherwise we can only assume the worst.
MARK SMITH
MARK SMITH
August 29, 2012
To Bob: the fuel cost saving for elec veh is about 30%.

To: David and Lud: See Sun Drop Oil which is building a new utility scale bio fuel plant in Louisiana which does not use food.

To DavidCarl: even big numbers start with just one. gotta start somewhere.
thomas conroy
thomas conroy
August 29, 2012
Let's hope that the Republican's rhetoric will be replaced by knowledge and thoughtfulness analogous to what Paul Ryan brings to the budget debate when/if they win. At the rate the Dem's are spending money there will be no money (nor additional electricity demand) for renewables. Don't forget that Pres. Bush is the one who got the PTC passed and the industry moving in 2004...Obama has not even been able to negotiate an extension of Pres. Bush's policy.
Finally, the wind industry needs to get off of the teat anyway, and on a level-playing-field basis has the ability to do so. Obviously it's hard to let go of so much money, even if unneeded.
Mike Holly
Mike Holly
August 29, 2012
I find it absolutely amazing that any rational person would even acknowledge any of America's bought and paid for pols.

Paul Ryan admits in a Financial Times article on July 19, 2012 titled "Republicans Must Return to Free-Market Principles":

"Both political parties have fallen victim to "partnership" with large and well-connected companies, especially in energy, housing, finance and healthcare."

Now, legendary investor Jim Rogers warns Americans to prepare for "Financial Armageddon," saying he fully expects the economy to
implode after the U.S. election.

Good going guys!
lawrence elliott
lawrence elliott
August 29, 2012
I find it absolutely amazing that any rational person would even acknowledge this person known as Mitt Romney.

But of course rational is not an operative word when describing the American electorate.

To even acknowledge this pathetic, narcissistic,born with a silver spoon in his mouth' George Bush Clone Shape Shifter, at a minimum is sad,but to actively seek his opinion on renewable energy issues is the equivalent of going downtown to locate the village idiot and discuss nuclear fusion.

Until American's wake up and demand real leadership and at a minimum actually do some leading themselves in solving our pressing issues we will continue to get a constant stream of losers like Mitt RawMoney serving as stooges and buffoons for those behind the curtain who are really pulling the strings.

After you vote for this fool please slink off and put your head down in shame. Of course don't cry when policies that will be put into law through his signature (perhaps a simple X)continue to reduce you to a servile cog in a great wheel that's being spun by modern day Economic Royal's living behind their gated ramparts and enjoying the fruits of your groveling labor.

That is until the problems they help create and continue to ignore catch up even with them and we all then participate in a real life drama equivalent to MAD MAX.

And no I'm not a fan of Barack Obama either.
He is also integral to implementing the Royal's dictates.
He would not be in the position he's in had he not sworn allegiance to them

Have a nice servile day ya all.

And BTW the person who made this statement?
"It's rather childish to suggest that oil/gas companies have some sort of "monopoly" in the US energy markets."

And then went on to sing the praises of "massive cheap natural gas etc"

It is guaranteed he or she will in fact vote for this pathetic moron.

Amazing how effectively Fox News Kool Aid is in dulling a person's senses.

Fracking Zone Kool Aid anyone?
David Carl
David Carl
August 29, 2012
Bob-Wallace, so in post 35 you come pretty close to admitting that if energy independence by 2020 is your goal more oil production is about the only way to achieve it. My point still is that it does not matter what you do with solar and wind, it does not bring us to energy independence no matter how much they increase.

Maybe the question should be why 2020? Is that because it is the longest Romney can be president or because much can happen in 8 years? As has been noted by myself and others, there will be a need for petroleum products beyond 2020. The new fuel standards, if met, will decrease fuel consumption by 40% for those cars sold in 2025. It does not change the existing fleet mileage.

Consider this possibility, GM (this would apply to others plug in hybrids) heavily discount the Volt because they get a 100 mpg credit (just picked a number, I don't know what the credit will be) for selling the car. This means their fleet meets the standard. The new Volt owners either do not charge the battery or frequently drive beyond the range of the battery. Therefore, the reality is that the mileage standard is met only on paper.

There is a solution out there and it may be something that comes completely out of the blue. I suppose it is possible that it could happen in 8 years, but it seems likely to require much longer.
Jens Stubbe
Jens Stubbe
August 29, 2012
#42 Hi Bob

I will find the German EV studies for you - hopefully in english. Could you post the US studies as well. I share your enthusiasm about EV's but think they are still too distant into the future relative to just shifting the car fleet to natural gas.

Just terminate the permit to sell gasolin and diesel driven cars and enforce that all gas stations fit natural gas infrastructure or close down. This can be done in months effectively shutting down US import of oil and I think you can match the demand for more natural gas production capacity. When natural gas resources becomes scarce the EV's will be ready and so will RE electric power generation.

The HVDC from North Africa is on the bottom of the sea and so are the cables from Britain to Iceland. Coming from Denmark I know we have several HVDC cables under sea already, so there is nothing impractical about HVDC at sea.

Graphene and CNT cabling is still in the future but you are right in assuming that capacity per $ can rise significantly when or if new materials become economically viable.

It makes perfect sense to run cables around the globe as the RE resources are very concentrated in specific remote areas.

I agree wind is cheap and on fast track to become extremely cheap. Solar is also on fast track to become cheaper than wind today in many parts of the globe but far from being cheaper than wind at the best sites and/or the best altitudes.

The difference between wind and solar is that wind generation at the best sites and in the best altitudes has a phenomenal energy density and capacity factors only rivaled by nuclear. Currently you do not however place wind turbines in Iceland because they have ample cheap geo thermal and hydro power already but when HVDC connections opens for Icelandic power export wind turbines can begin harvesting Icelands strong steady winds and create a major export industry.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
August 29, 2012
(ran out of room)

How far the HVDC lines should run? I really don't know. I can see the Iceland to Middle East grid. Perhaps it makes sense to tie into Asia, I just don't know.

A North America grid makes sense to me. We already have one in some sense. We are connected to Canada and to Mexico with some parts of our grids. Our first priority, I suspect, is to get all the 'lower 48' tied together.

I suspect it's a matter of making the grid 'big enough' so that there is enough variability in inputs to level stuff out. Crossing oceans with wire might not make financial sense.

It's going to be interesting to see if graphene wires change the calculations. They might be much cheaper than carbon, and a lot stronger, and make very long distance transmission a lot cheaper.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
August 29, 2012
I've read three studies on EVs here in the US. Two found that EVs running on 100% coal generated electricity would be slightly more CO2 producing than same-sized cars running on gas. One study found slightly less.

The US grid is now about 21% renewables and nuclear so, on average, EVs would produce a lot less CO2. That varies from state to state. Idaho is about 90% renewable (mostly hydro) so an EV would win big time. Indiana uses a lot of coal so an EV might be only slightly better. But in all states our grids are getting cleaner, more renewables.

Those 2016 and 2025 MPG requirements also cover pickup trucks and SUVs. They are fleet mileage requirements, not "best of the breed".

Estimates are that the US has somewhere between 20 and 100 years of natural gas and that 100 year estimate is very, very speculative. 20 to 50 is a safer range.

That year range is based on 2010 burn rates. In the last couple of years we've greatly increased the amount of NG we use for electricity and we are getting to export (we used to import). If we started converting personal transportation to NG we could easily double the 2010 burn rate and cut the supply to 10 to 25 years.

Put all fossil fuel out of business. I believe we'll have adequate range, affordable EV batteries in the next few years. Wind generation is cheap and perfect for EVs. Lots of wind blows when people are asleep and demand is down. Perfect time for EVs to charge while parked for the night.

Driving an EV on electricity is like driving a 30MPG car on $1/gallon gas. It's just plain cheap and creates no CO2.

I agree, go easy on the natural gas. It can be a really good fill-in for variable renewables. On some grids there can be a couple times a year in which the wind barely blows for 3-4 days. Using a gas turbine could be a good way to take up that slack.
Jens Stubbe
Jens Stubbe
August 29, 2012
#38+39 Hi Bob

EV's are no less CO2 efficient than the source of energy that fuels them.

In Germany they have just released a study that shows that EV's with average German electric power generation efficiency will emit more CO2 than a standard German car.

And mind you Germans have 22% nuclear and a significant solar and wind in their electric power generation + far more energy efficient coal plants than you have in the states. => EV's at present will increase US transportation CO2 emissions.

The Obama vehicle efficiency goals for 2025 are not ambitious. You can buy BMW's that do better than that today.

These motors can with minor changes be converted to Natural Gas. Cars running on Natural gas are approximately 10% more power efficient, pollute far less and because natural gas contain approximately 20% less carbon => you will instantly save nearly 30% of the CO2 footprint.

Natural gas for power generation is even more benign because coal fired plants in USA are only about 35% efficient vs natural gas plants that run at up to 60% efficiency. Coal is also very energy intensive to mine relative to natural gas.

Put coal and Tar Sand out of business and explore natural gas as fast as you can.

The window of opportunity for natural gas is very short lived as solar and wind power generation becomes cheaper with astonishing speed.

Do not think that you should hold on to natural gas resources to balance wind and solar for decades to come. There are far better solutions to that end.

The HVDC grid in Europe is extending and at the moment the HVDC grid from Britain to Iceland is planned. To decades from now the HVDC grid will stretch from Japan to Iceland and Africa, så why not to USA as well. The hot spots for RE utility power are typically in remote areas of the world such as arid deserts for solar and polar regions for wind etc.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
August 28, 2012
Here's the rest of the comment and link...


"It's as though we eliminated our entire CO2 emissions for one year,..."

http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/new-auto-fuel-efficiency-standards-finalized-545-mpg-by-2025.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

My bet is that car manufacturers are counting on a lot of carbon-free vehicles in their mix in order to bring the MPG to the agreed upon levels. Lots of "100 MPG" EVs.


(This site has math problems. It told me that I had 11 characters left, then told me I was over count when I posted.)
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
August 28, 2012
Depending on who is doing the estimating there is between 20 and 100 years of natural gas. The 100 years estimate seems pretty speculative to me.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/future_tense/2011/12/is_there_really_100_years_worth_of_natural_gas_beneath_the_united_states_.html

Those estimates are based on 2010 burn rates. We're already using a lot more NG for electricity generation and getting ready to export some. If we then start using NG on a larger scale for transportation then it wouldn't be long before we doubled the 2010 burn rate. That cuts the estimates to 10 to 50 years.

I'm not seeing NG as our route to cutting vehicle CO2. Better we hang on to some for deep backup of renewables (those few times a year when wind and Sun just aren't cooperative).

---

Here's a help....

Today -

"The White House on Tuesday announced it had finalized new fuel-efficiency standards for American-made passenger cars and light trucks, requiring that new models for 2025 achieve an average fuel efficiency of 54.5 miles-per-gallon.

That amount would more than double the current average fuel economy, 25.2 miles-per-gallon as of 2012, according to the Department of Transportation, which enforces the standards and worked on the new fuel economy requirements with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the major U.S. automakers.

For the lifetime of cars released in the next 13 years — when the new rules will go into effect as well, as previous ones that boosted the 2016 fuel efficiency standard to 34.1 miles-per-gallon — the government expects that greenhouse gas emissions will be curbed by 6 billion metric tons, which the EPA and the Department of Transportation said was the most significant single reduction of these emissions in U.S. history.
Jens Stubbe
Jens Stubbe
August 28, 2012
If US government was smart they would replace gasolin with natural gas through legislative measures. It will be an intermediate power source for sure but it will relieve the challenge to become dependent on domestic energy only and in the process fast track USA to reduced CO2 emission from traffic.

Natural gas contains far less carbon than gasolin or diesel and motors run more fuel efficient on natural gas.

The tipping point for electric vehicles defined as when half the new cars sold will be electric is probably 20 years ahead based on the current advance of battery technology.

To handle that the car fleet is doubling worldwide means that all countries and especially those with technological and financial ability needs to push legislation through that makes cars run more fuel efficient even before EV's can be introduced large scale.

If the efforts in development of Lithium Air batteries pans out like IBM among others are hoping then these batteries can pack more energy per weight than gasolin and as electric engines are about four times as efficient as the best motors available there is hope that the car industry eventually will be based on electricity.

More power per weight also translates into less materials cost per power unit and thus less costly batteries.

Many other means of transport including even planes may also use batteries once companies such as IBM solve the core development issues successfully.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
August 28, 2012
Fair enough. So let's think this new liquid fuel option through.

First, we don't have one yet. At least not at an affordable price and one that has adequate non-destructive inputs. (Food or soil health turned into fuel is not acceptable.)

Second, if we do invent one (algae is promising) then it would take many years to build the infrastructure to produce that fuel in adequate amounts. And unless it is a drop-in replacement for gas/diesel there will be the need to build a new distribution system.

EVs and PHEVs are on the road right now. We have more than enough surplus generation and transmission to charge their batteries (72% of the existing fleet could be turned into electrics and charged on the current grid). We're accelerating our installation of wind and solar generation. Driving with electricity costs roughly "$1/gallon".

Can we invent a low cost non-petroleum liquid drop-in fuel which is not dependent on smokestack emissions, which is sustainable, and get the infrastructure needed built in eight years?

That's not the pony I'd bet on....
David Carl
David Carl
August 28, 2012
So now you have gone from change happens over night to it takes at least two decades. 2020 is 8 years away.

I own two 2005 cars and a 2010. I am not looking to replace any of them anytime soon. I spend about $200 a month on fuel for all three. It therefore takes about 5 years to payoff the difference between a regular car versus all electric, if you assume my electricity is free, which it is not. GM has sold 18,000 volts. At a 272% increase every year for 4 years for it to achieve energy independence for new car sales. This still leaves over 200,000,000 gasoline burning vehicles on the road (with no plans to build any new plants GM can not maintain the growth rate).

As you said, the average vehicle is on the road for 12 years. 99% of those sold this year burn fossil fuels. Next year it will still be 99%. In 2014 it may be 98% and in 2015 it may be 97%. All of those vehicles, along with millions more will still be on the road in 2020. That is the time frame of the objective. I, along with about 275 million other Americans, would like to see a policy that addresses the fact that oil will be a necessary fuel for at least another 25 years rather than the attitude that some seem to have that it will run out eventually so lets act like it is running out today.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
August 28, 2012
David -

"At the current rate of selling electric vehicles we will achieve energy independence about 300 years from now. So go ahead and push for your windmills and photovoltaic systems. They still do not solve the problem."

This year the sale of GM Volts is up 272% over last year. Stop and give some consideration to acceleration of adoption. It is not safe to project change using straight lines, that's not how things generally change. We hit tipping points at which the new technology is in some way superior and/or cheaper and the transition rapidly accelerates.

The average lifetime of cars in the US is 12 years. Once we hit that "good as or better/cheaper" point we'll flip our fleet quickly.

In 1908 Henry Ford introduced the Model T, the first affordable automobile. Prior to then cars had been too expensive for most people even though they offered major advantages over horses. If you spend some time looking at pictures of city streets in the 1930s you'll have trouble finding any horses outside of parades. We largely flipped from horses to cars in two decades at a time when change was much slower than it is today.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
August 28, 2012
"While renewable energy may put a small dent in fossil fuel use for electricity generation it will have virtually no affect (by 2020, which is the deadline the article mentions) on transportation use of fossil fuels."

Think so?

Roughly 50% of American driving is done with cars which are only five years old or newer. 2013 models will be announced soon and scuttlebutt is that both GM and Nissan will be announcing significant range improvements. And I would expect prices will drop a bit as well.

Let's say that with the 2015 model year we see 100+ mile range EVs and 50 mile range PHEVs that cost the same or very little more than comparable ICEVs. How many new car purchasers do you think will by a gas or diesel fueled vehicle that will cost them serious money per month to fuel when they can buy, for the same price, a perfectly serviceable vehicle that costs 1/4th or less per mile to drive?

We hit the 2015 mark, which I think quite possible, and by 2020 we will have cut our personal liquid fuel use by up to 40%. (Half of our fleet cutting their liquid fuel use by 75% - 80%.)
Lud Keller
Lud Keller
August 28, 2012
Bob - Noted and thanks.
David Carl
David Carl
August 28, 2012
Bob-Wallace, what I have witnessed are your comments (If we got serious about getting off of fossil fuels we could be getting more than 20% of our electricity from renewables by 2020. And create a lot of good American jobs by doing so. And giving the economy a nice boost.) While renewable energy may put a small dent in fossil fuel use for electricity generation it will have virtually no affect (by 2020, which is the deadline the article mentions) on transportation use of fossil fuels.

If you want to continue to make references that have nothing to do with the point of the article, be my guest. It was energy independence in case you have forgotten. It also mentioned that oil consumption is the area the US is not energy independent. Renewable electrical generation does not affect US oil consumption.

Market researcher claim that plug in vehicle sales (most of them being hybrids, so they still use gasolene) worldwide will top 1 million by 2015 (others say 2020). Go ahead and whip out that slide rule and tell us how long it will take to wean the US (or any country) off oil when 3% of new sales are some form of electric and 97% are oil based.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
August 28, 2012
lud - We don't yet need storage. US grids can change over to 25% (Eastern grid) to 35% (Western grid) wind and solar without adding any storage. There's adequate flexibility in the grid as it is.

Wind has probably passed 4% this year, solar is still working on reaching 1%. Storage is a 'few years from now' need. And lots of research is being done. MIT's liquid metal battery is looking very promising. Very cheap, very long lasting.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
August 28, 2012
Perhaps you're very young David. Perhaps you've never experienced a transformational shift in technologies.

If you were as old as I am you would have seen slide rules disappear in about two years after hand held scientific calculators were introduced. That's how long after introduction the two major slide rule manufacturers lasted.

You could have seen typewriters, ledger books, and adding machines go down to personal computers. That happened in a ten to fifteen year time period.

You could have seen film give way to digital. Basically a ten year span from decent 2 meg, sort of expensive compact digitals to film being a niche product. Ten years later Kodak is out of the film business.

The sale of GM Volts is up 272% over last year. The installation rate of solar in the US is up 120% first half 2012 over first half 2011. Transitions start slow and then accelerate. Once "good enough and cheap enough" crossover points are reached the old technology disappears quickly.
David Carl
David Carl
August 28, 2012
At the current rate of selling electric vehicles we will achieve energy independence about 300 years from now. So go ahead and push for your windmills and photovoltaic systems. They still do not solve the problem.
William Fitch
William Fitch
August 28, 2012
Hi: Electric vehicles are OF COURSE the way to go powered by sun, wind, wave, tidal, biomass, etc.. I have about 20% of my tracking PV project on line. Once it is complete and a bit of wind added, I will produce twice what I use. The remainder down the road will be for EV's, if I ever can afford a new car... The solutions are already at hand. Its just 2.4 Trillion dollars gross yearly profit can buy countries let alone political interests. The amount of control and simultaneous damage O&G can do is often underestimated, as are the other multi-national interests like Monsanto, all of banking, the MIC, etc...
To me the greatest threat is not the lack of a solution, but the power and control of the intrenched interests.

.....Bill
Jens Stubbe
Jens Stubbe
August 28, 2012
#24

Hi Mark

For many reasons the Danish government is giving the underground resources away to multinationals. Part of the story is that the multinationals simply bought the right wing of parliament. As a nation we get far less out of fossil energy resources than any other country I know of say for maybe Irak.

You imply that Danes can afford "expensive" RE. The fact is that our electricity generation costs are on par with the rest of Europes so there are no question of being able to afford RE - it is affordable.

Contrary to Germany, France, Sweden and other countries around us we have an energy plan and the energy companies in Denmark are well funded well run and have no skeletons like huge costly nuclear plants that needs decommission within this or the next decade.

Anyway we too in Denmark have found loads of natural gas (about 150 years of current energy consumption) but the discussion is whether to let it be safely locked in underground or to exploit it.

No one in their right mind believe that fossil power will be around for yet 150 years as the atmosphere is already overloaded and because RE is becoming cheaper fast.

The known fossil power resources are five times as much as climate scientist believe we humans can emit while still having a chance that the global temperature will only rise 2 degrees Celsius.

By increasing exploitation of the Danish fossil resources we will significantly contribute to faster global warming and we will weaken our own political goals because we urge the world to do what we do not practise.

Most Danes live in coastal cities and we have more than 500 islands so just a minor rise in sea level will be extremely costly for Denmark.

For US I would love to see some realism and self restraint - could you at least substitute Tar Sand and coal entirely with natural gas, keep promoting more power efficient technologies and promote wind and solar actively ?
JOHNSON MARK
JOHNSON MARK
August 28, 2012
@ Smith-Mark #11
Hello,
I believe there can be a renewable energy future but the key word is "future". I simply was saying that any serious energy policy for the next 4 to 8 years, if it's a President Romney, will have to be concentrated on domestic production of oil, gas, nuclear, etc. because wind and solar just can't replace it that fast. I like solar but I see pitfalls that are not discussed like BOS components needing replacement say 10 years down the road (and we all know warranties are as valuable as the paper their on). There goes the Return on Investment.
Denmark is an interesting case of having so much oil production for a small territory that they have to export it (my limited knowledge of Denmark). They make a tremendous profit and can afford to develop alternatives.
Thomas M
Thomas M
August 28, 2012
The solution is simple ...ignore Romney (aka R-money) and the rest of his gang...
Lud Keller
Lud Keller
August 28, 2012
The issue at hand is enormously complex and practically every single comment posted reflects/represents to some extent a viable opinion on subject matter.
However, what so far is missing are the topics of "energy storage" which requires still a lot of research till any technology for energy storage becomes a feasible solution to the problem for both of solar- and wind power generation.
Further, the issue of raw materials for biomass generated electricity and/or manufacturing of biofuels is that the use of "edible raw materials" is an absolute no-no and hence has to gradually be changed to non-edible feeds. The increase of food prices are starting to bite everyone already, isn't it?!
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
August 28, 2012
David, perhaps you haven't heard. There's a new form of transportation that is making its way to our streets and highways. Actually it's not new, we were using this technology 100 years ago but stopped developing it when we found that we could power our rides with cheap, abundant gasoline.

Now that gasoline is no longer cheap and abundant we're revisiting our old friend. And we're finding that we can drive around for a small cost of liquid fuels.

Here's this amazing technology. We store electricity in batteries and then use that stored electricity to propel our vehicles!

It's pretty amazing. The cost of driving is about 1/4th what we're use to paying for driving with gasoline, perhaps even less. We avoid pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere and we make our air cleaner and healthier.

It's a danged miracle.

Now, we haven't go this technology quite up to speed yet. We need to improve our batteries, but improving stuff is something we are really good at. Look back at how crude our gas powered cars were when we first started making them. And look at how limited our early computers were. This is just another challenge which we will undertake and surmount.

It's a grand new future, David. We'll harvest the strength of the Sun and wind and use them to propel ourselves for a penance of what we have been used to paying. We'll cut our dependence on foreign countries which really aren't our friends. And we'll make the world a better place.

Hope you can take this all on board and understand where we are headed....
David Carl
David Carl
August 27, 2012
The article clearly says the primary area the US is not self sufficient is liquid transportation fuels. All the comments about more wind and photovoltaic will not solve this problem. Three options exist. Produce more, use less, or produce a renewable liquid fuel. Romney advocates the first. Regulations are in place to achieve the second. The third is the illusive answer.
William Fitch
William Fitch
August 27, 2012
Hi: Anon's mouthpiece responses are just the usual anti-reality offerings designed to create doubt for the knowledgeless undecided, who cannot look at the world outside their doorstep, or nature from a distance, and see what is most obvious. Its funny, but the whole O&G denialist offerings reminds me of the old original sci-fi Battlestar Galactica. Baltar, the traitor to humanity insisted the Robotic Cylons were of peaceful intentions right up until their attack crafts were approaching to annihilate all humans. He said the approaching ships were a peace emissary offering... LOL... Denial and lies to the end...

.....Bill
Mike Holly
Mike Holly
August 27, 2012
After reading the other comments it looks like ANONYMOUS may have been responding to me when saying "It's rather childish to suggest that oil/gas companies have some sort of "monopoly" in the US energy markets."

I thought I had clearly stated that I was talking about electric utility monopolies and their deregulated spinoffs. Companies like Xcel.

I was not referring to the oil and gas oligopolies. That is a totally different group of companies and antitrust concern (eg BP).

My biggest concern with them is every time they run out of cheap oil and gas, the Republicans like Bush and Romney give them exemptions to environmental laws like fracking and deepwater drilling (exemptions to lawsuits from spills).
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
August 27, 2012
Mr. Romney no longer knows what Mr. Romney knows, I would bet.

The guy has changed his positions so radically and so often that I doubt he knows what he believes. He's now embracing Romneycare/Obamacare when only a couple of weeks ago he was strongy opposed to it.

And there is no evidence that Romney is a "deeply intelligent" man. A bit above normal intelligence, but no evidence at all of any deep thinking. He's just someone of slightly above average ability born on third base and escorted to home plate by a supportive cast of players.

No one who was deeply intelligent would have shown up to the presidential race without a plan to deal with questions about hie income taxes and the name of the person who was the CEO of Bain when he "wasn't".

Romney will kiss the ring of anyone who he thinks can make him president. If he got into office there's no telling what he might do. He's got no inner core steering him to fix America's problems. He's more likely to put on the presidential jacket and go play with his grandkids while things crash around the rest of us.

Romney has never shown any desire to help his fellow man.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
August 27, 2012
"You can have no genuine energy policy that drives an economy without oil, gas, and coal. To say that renewable energy increased 73% is terrific but as a slice of the whole picture we're talking 1 to 2% of our energy needs? and it may get to 10% by 2020? I don't think you can consider this a solid alternative to drive the US economy."

Actually wind has probably reached a 4% share this year. It passed 3% last year. Renewable, in total, produced 12.6% of our electricity in 2011.

If we got serious about getting off of fossil fuels we could be getting more than 20% of our electricity from renewables by 2020. And create a lot of good American jobs by doing so. And giving the economy a nice boost.

We'd also save money at the meter and save tax and insurance premium dollars. There's just no downside to moving to renewables, except for the fossil fuel industry.
MARK SMITH
MARK SMITH
August 27, 2012
And ..don't cry too much for big oil.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
August 27, 2012
"It's rather childish to suggest that oil/gas companies have some sort of "monopoly" in the US energy markets. These companies have to produce and sell their products on the open markets against competition. "

There is no meaningful competition in the oil business. Demand sucks up supply. There is no competing for customers, perhaps some for supply, but oil companies have no trouble selling everything they produce. What this means is that they may increase what they pay for source and pass that on to customers. There's no need to hold down prices (or profits) in order to capture market share.
MARK SMITH
MARK SMITH
August 27, 2012
To Solomon and Duenwald:

This is a good article. Judging by his policies in Massachusetts, Mr. Romney is a highly intelligent man with some real imagination,
but he is hard to read now because his campaign remarks are designed to say as little as possible. Most Republicans just want him to say the he is against Mr. Obama, which he does say.
But to be truly "energy independent" the USA needs more "sustainable energy" sources because fossil fuels are not "sustainable". Mr. Romney must know that.
Jens Stubbe
Jens Stubbe
August 27, 2012
#10 Hi Mark

I am curios to as why you think economy could not run 100% RE. Actually it is official government policy in Denmark where only one party representing a few percent has not voted for this agenda.

More than 90% of the Danes is for this energy policy.

Unlike US Denmark is a net exporter of energy and have been that for more than 30 years. The national interest in developing RE is not driven by alturism alone. There is a significant RE industry, in Danish context at least.

It is not only feasible to do without fossil and nuclear it is also going to be very lucrative.

If you imagine a global growth rate of 3% right through to 2050 you will discover that world economy will triple.

Where do you want to get rid of all that excess CO2 ?

Anyway Romney and his backing groups can do all they want - they cannot stop the transition to RE and Americans will refuse to become poor so eventually they will wise up within what you term as a foreseeable future.

Grid parity for both wind and solar will be realized within a few years and the energy prize downspiral won't stop there.
JOHNSON MARK
JOHNSON MARK
August 27, 2012
I've been a casual observer of these new power sources, even went out of my way to take a 3 month course on PV Systems to understand this technology. I think it (solar, wind, etc.) has potential for handling some power needs but to be critical of an energy policy that would rely more on fossil fuels is silly. You can have no genuine energy policy that drives an economy without oil, gas, and coal. To say that renewable energy increased 73% is terrific but as a slice of the whole picture we're talking 1 to 2% of our energy needs? and it may get to 10% by 2020? I don't think you can consider this a solid alternative to drive the US economy.
PV Systems have a long way to go for efficiency without covering 100 or so acres with panels to power a small town.
I think there is a balanced approach out there but it will have to rely heavily on fossil fuels for the foreseeable future.
mike shurtleff
mike shurtleff
August 27, 2012
@Anon
You said: "It's rather childish to suggest that oil/gas companies have some sort of "monopoly" in the US energy markets."

Oh please, there are only a few major oil corporations (6 I think) who control this resource. The supply is limited and almost all of western transportation is dependent on it. Yeh, we don't have to purchase it, we can ride our horses to work.
As Peter Lynch points out the fossil fuel companies still receiver the lions share of USA energy subsidies even though they are wildly profitable. Yet they are instrumental in Romney's plan to cut all subsidies to wind and solar. If you're a greedy monopoly then it's important to kill any competition before it gets established.
There's nothing wrong with natural gas, you're right about that, but it won't last for long. Solar will and it is right on the cusp of becoming fully competitive on it's own.
Don't kid yourself, or us, Romney is a puppet of big oil and there is nothing fair and competitive going on here. This is a struggle to maintain the oil monopoly, to cash in while prices remain high.
ANONYMOUS
August 27, 2012
It's rather childish to suggest that oil/gas companies have some sort of "monopoly" in the US energy markets. These companies have to produce and sell their products on the open markets against competition. They also pay tens of billions in federal taxes and royalties every year. Just how does Exxon or Connoco-Phillips have the ability to force you to buy their gasoline? They don't!

In case you missed it, the Bloomberg article makes an important point. The recent and rapid shift in US energy production from coal to gas is having a huge impact in both emissions and economic growth. Just how is that a bad thing? The availability of massive amounts of cheap domestic natural gas is like getting something for nothing. It replaces dirtier coal and pumps additional $hundreds of billions into the US domestic economy each year.

In the mean time we will keep working hard to make renewable technology cost competitive with conventional sources. And when this happens we will transition from natural gas to wind or solar.
Mike Holly
Mike Holly
August 25, 2012
The authors claim: "If Romney is looking for ideas, free-market strategies are the way to go. One that is gaining traction in many states is to require utilities to use a certain percentage of electricity generated by renewable power and then let the markets sort out the most efficient way to meet that target."

First, mandates are not free markets. Second, there are no free markets in the US electricity industry.

Markets are dominated by regulated utility monopolies and their monopoly spinoffs in deregulated states. Currently, there is little incentive to develop low-cost renewable energy technologies because these monopolies could take it whenever they wanted.

Romney is advocating nothing to free the industry from monopoly control. The article clearly shows he is picking winners and losers (even though he says he won't support natural gas vehicles because that would be picking winners and losers). In addition, according to news reports, he is holding meetings with monied fossil fuel special interests before announcing policies.

The US needs a President that will promote free markets instead of picking winners and losers, like Romney and Obama, who are pursuing crony capitalistic, fascist economic policies.
Atanacio Luna
Atanacio Luna
August 25, 2012
We are far from the big "R" yet but chaos does loom large on the horizon of dirtier energy and blotched environment. Unfortunately we might be able to make earth into venus before we run out of hydrocarbons.
The problem is that people think with their guts, and their guts are being messed with by deception. Sadly what passes for leadership in our money driven media is the person who distorts reality best according what the people want to hear: Like "Go consume to support our wars".
A carbon tax is as market powerful as anything can be, yet it is anathema to speak of it in public. True leadership would identify such best solutioins and sell them honestly.
Peter Lynch
Peter Lynch
August 25, 2012
As Anonymous stated - this is really a KEY election. One party is aware of reality and the GOP is totally unaware period.

Regarding subsidies - once again - totally ignorant of reality.

On average the Oil and Gas industry has received $4.86 Billion PER YEAR since 1918 - when will it be ready to stand on it's own ???

Renewables ONLY since 1994 has received 370 Million annually. So over their respective subsidy lifetimes Oil & Gas has received over 80 TIMES MORE government money.
William Fitch
William Fitch
August 25, 2012
Hi: Citizens United must be overturned just as a start. Until ALL THE MONEY is out of politics, everyone is just pissing in the wind, choosing the RED fast track to a Dystopian world, or the BLUE track achieving the same end, albeit at a slower pace. The problem is, if you take a honest look at history, power and money HAS NEVER given it up willingly, NEVER. There is only one way it has ever happened, and we all know what that is... That's not being radical, paranoid, or the big 'R' promo, it is just what you see when you take a real look at history... .....Bill
ANONYMOUS
August 25, 2012
The choice is very clear. Either hand over the nation to oil tycoons and lag in emerging renewable energy technologies or lead in renewable energy research and technology development which is beneficial for the environment as well the economy. The choice we make in the coming election will have profound consequences for America and the planet.
Rich Hessler
Rich Hessler
August 24, 2012
Anything short of an urgent shift to renewables threatens the security of the American people on-shore and off-shore.

Current Energy Secretary http://ases.org/2012/06/steven-chu-extinguishing-the-political-debate-around-renewable-energy/

Global Warming's Terrifying New Math, Rolling Stone Magazine by Bill McKibben of 350.org http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719

The Green Party seems reasonable, we can save money fighting over fossil fuel supplies and the technology is available: http://www.gp.org/committees/platform/2012/ecological-sustainability.php#Energy

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create an Account!
  • Sign-In
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • Residential Demand Spurs US Solar Installations in 1Q13 Residential Demand Spurs US Solar Installations in 1Q13
  • Ocean Energy Development: Apply Common Sense to Common Problems Ocean Energy Development: Apply Common Sense to Common Problems
  • Severn Barrage “No Knight in Shining Armour for UK Renewables” Severn Barrage “No Knight in Shining Armour for UK Renewables”
  • Project Permit: Cutting Red Tape for Green Energy Project Permit: Cutting Red Tape for Green Energy
  • Solar CHP Innovations Offer Efficiency Kick, Future Energy Storage Options Solar CHP Innovations Offer Efficiency Kick, Future Energy Storage Options

Most Commented

  • 9
    Country-Based Action to Achieve Universal Access to Energy
  • 4
    From the Sea to the Pump: Is Kelp a Viable Biofuel?
  • 3
    Renewable Energy in Myanmar: Not Just Clean, It’s Necessary
  • 2
    Sir Richard Branson unleashes Plan B for the planet

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • RussTech Language Services, Inc.
  • American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE)
  • Stoel Rives LLP
  • Renewable Energy World Europe
  • Rotork plc
  • Green Power Conferences
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
  • Natural Power
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hydro Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen International
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information