seedy 0
billvon 2,433
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>So it constitutes bad news for some, as well. It is understood that there are winners
>and losers. The issue becomes whether these people's bitterness can be seen as
>somewhat reasonable.
In 2012, the solar industry in the US added 15,700 jobs. So you have 2,658 workers who are "bitter" but 15,700 workers who are very happy. (Heck, some of those workers who you claim are bitter may be among those 15,700.)
>and losers. The issue becomes whether these people's bitterness can be seen as
>somewhat reasonable.
In 2012, the solar industry in the US added 15,700 jobs. So you have 2,658 workers who are "bitter" but 15,700 workers who are very happy. (Heck, some of those workers who you claim are bitter may be among those 15,700.)
Solar is a great technology to supplement our power needs, but it is not viable to completely replace our traditional sources of energy. Remember not everyone lives in a warm sunny climate. Some people live in places where Mother Nature is rather active and solar panels don't work very well when overcast skies dominate the landscape for weeks on end, and they don't work at all when they are covered by snow. Plus of course they don't work when the sun is down which is the majority of the hours in a day in northern regions during the winter months (and the opposite in the southern hemisphere).
However with all that said, I did observe one of my peers using solar technology on his trailer and I am thinking, "I should do that". I joined an amateur Kart racing team and one member of the team installed solar panels on top of his trailer. He has all the power he needs when he is at the track. Other teams are burning fossil fuels running generators to give themselves power while Garret just lets his solar technology do all the work. It was a brilliant application of the technology.
Try not to worry about the things you have no control over
However with all that said, I did observe one of my peers using solar technology on his trailer and I am thinking, "I should do that". I joined an amateur Kart racing team and one member of the team installed solar panels on top of his trailer. He has all the power he needs when he is at the track. Other teams are burning fossil fuels running generators to give themselves power while Garret just lets his solar technology do all the work. It was a brilliant application of the technology.
Try not to worry about the things you have no control over
seedy 0
billvon>So it constitutes bad news for some, as well. It is understood that there are winners
>and losers. The issue becomes whether these people's bitterness can be seen as
>somewhat reasonable.
In 2012, the solar industry in the US added 15,700 jobs. So you have 2,658 workers who are "bitter" but 15,700 workers who are very happy. (Heck, some of those workers who you claim are bitter may be among those 15,700.)
How many of those jobs that were added survived the bankruptcies (Solyndra, etc)?
And refer to my previous post about the support jobs when coal plants close or cut way back.
I intend to live forever -- so far, so good.
RonD1120 58
And the bad news is:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/brighammccown/2013/09/19/keystone-pipeline-five-years-and-counting/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/brighammccown/2013/09/19/keystone-pipeline-five-years-and-counting/
Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.
billvon>So it constitutes bad news for some, as well. It is understood that there are winners
>and losers. The issue becomes whether these people's bitterness can be seen as
>somewhat reasonable.
In 2012, the solar industry in the US added 15,700 jobs. So you have 2,658 workers who are "bitter" but 15,700 workers who are very happy. (Heck, some of those workers who you claim are bitter may be among those 15,700.)
I didn't ask about other employees being happy.
I asked whether the laid-off people's bitterness can be seen as somewhat reasonable.
My point being that there is some harm in any of these policies. Good news for the environment. Hey, good news for 15k people. Bad news for a few thousand others.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
DanG 1
QuoteMy point being that there is some harm in any of these policies. Good news for the environment. Hey, good news for 15k people. Bad news for a few thousand others.
It almost sounds like you're arguing for a centrally planned economy, comrade.
And to respond to the obvious counter-point that alternative energy is only viable right now because of government subsidies: that's true. But traditional energy also receives government subsidies, and has for decades.
- Dan G
billvon 2,433
>How many of those jobs that were added survived the bankruptcies (Solyndra, etc)?
All of them survived Solyndra. Those jobs were added in 2012; Solyndra went bankrupt in 2011.
>And refer to my previous post about the support jobs when coal plants close or cut
>way back.
Yep. Then there are the support jobs added when solar/wind plants open.
All of them survived Solyndra. Those jobs were added in 2012; Solyndra went bankrupt in 2011.
>And refer to my previous post about the support jobs when coal plants close or cut
>way back.
Yep. Then there are the support jobs added when solar/wind plants open.
billvon 2,433
>Remember not everyone lives in a warm sunny climate. Some people live in places
>where Mother Nature is rather active and solar panels don't work very well when
>overcast skies dominate the landscape for weeks on end, and they don't work at all
>when they are covered by snow.
Agreed; solar isn't the best option everywhere. Fortunately, in most places where solar is a poor option due to persistent bad weather, that same reliable bad weather makes wind more viable.
In both cases you still need a baseline source of power. Hydro/nuclear are good sources there, with natural gas being a good peaking source.
>where Mother Nature is rather active and solar panels don't work very well when
>overcast skies dominate the landscape for weeks on end, and they don't work at all
>when they are covered by snow.
Agreed; solar isn't the best option everywhere. Fortunately, in most places where solar is a poor option due to persistent bad weather, that same reliable bad weather makes wind more viable.
In both cases you still need a baseline source of power. Hydro/nuclear are good sources there, with natural gas being a good peaking source.
Fortunately, in most places where solar is a poor option due to persistent bad weather, that same reliable bad weather makeswind more viable.
...but you get this!
http://energyblog.nationalgeographic.com/2013/09/12/federal-study-highlights-spike-in-eagle-deaths-at-wind-farms/
Chuck
...but you get this!
http://energyblog.nationalgeographic.com/2013/09/12/federal-study-highlights-spike-in-eagle-deaths-at-wind-farms/
Chuck
rushmc 18
billvon>Remember not everyone lives in a warm sunny climate. Some people live in places
>where Mother Nature is rather active and solar panels don't work very well when
>overcast skies dominate the landscape for weeks on end, and they don't work at all
>when they are covered by snow.
Agreed; solar isn't the best option everywhere. Fortunately, in most places where solar is a poor option due to persistent bad weather, that same reliable bad weather makes wind more viable.
In both cases you still need a baseline source of power. Hydro/nuclear are good sources there, with natural gas being a good peaking source.
Coal is by far the best choice
Hopefully it will be used in this capacity soon
Again
The problem with solar and wind it that both require double the generation souces because it cant stand alone (at least on a large comercial scale) This can effectively double the rates needlessly
A waste of money
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
billvon 2,433
>Coal is by far the best choice . . .Hopefully it will be used in this capacity soon
It is failing pretty comprehensively.
>This can effectively double the rates needlessly . . .A waste of money
===========================
Clean energy least costly to power America’s electricity needs
Wed, 09/18/2013 - 7:59am
Springer
Findings show carbon pollution from power plants can be cut cost-effectively by using wind, solar and natural gas
It’s less costly to get electricity from wind turbines and solar panels than coal-fired power plants when climate change costs and other health impacts are factored in, according to a new study published in Springer’s Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences.
In fact—using the official U.S. government estimates of health and environmental costs from burning fossil fuels—the study shows it’s cheaper to replace a typical existing coal-fired power plant with a wind turbine than to keep the old plant running. And new electricity generation from wind could be more economically efficient than natural gas.
The findings show the nation can cut carbon pollution from power plants in a cost-effective way, by replacing coal-fired generation with cleaner options like wind, solar, and natural gas.
“Burning coal is a very costly way to make electricity. There are more efficient and sustainable ways to get power,” said Dr. Laurie Johnson, chief economist in the Climate and Clean Air Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “We can reduce health and climate change costs while reducing the dangerous carbon pollution driving global warming.”
. . .
Carbon pollution imposes economic costs by damaging public health and driving destructive climate change. Working together, the White House Office of Management and Budget, the Treasury Department, the Department of Energy and eight other federal agencies put a dollar value on those damages, in an official figure called the “social cost of carbon” (SCC).
The SCC is used to calculate the benefits (i.e., avoided climate damages) of carbon pollution reduction. The administration puts the best estimate at $33 per ton of carbon pollution emitted in 2010.
The study also included government damage estimates from sulfur dioxide, a pollutant released simultaneously with carbon. Every year, sulfur dioxide causes thousands of premature deaths, respiratory ailments, heart disease and a host of ecosystem damages.
===========================
It is failing pretty comprehensively.
>This can effectively double the rates needlessly . . .A waste of money
===========================
Clean energy least costly to power America’s electricity needs
Wed, 09/18/2013 - 7:59am
Springer
Findings show carbon pollution from power plants can be cut cost-effectively by using wind, solar and natural gas
It’s less costly to get electricity from wind turbines and solar panels than coal-fired power plants when climate change costs and other health impacts are factored in, according to a new study published in Springer’s Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences.
In fact—using the official U.S. government estimates of health and environmental costs from burning fossil fuels—the study shows it’s cheaper to replace a typical existing coal-fired power plant with a wind turbine than to keep the old plant running. And new electricity generation from wind could be more economically efficient than natural gas.
The findings show the nation can cut carbon pollution from power plants in a cost-effective way, by replacing coal-fired generation with cleaner options like wind, solar, and natural gas.
“Burning coal is a very costly way to make electricity. There are more efficient and sustainable ways to get power,” said Dr. Laurie Johnson, chief economist in the Climate and Clean Air Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “We can reduce health and climate change costs while reducing the dangerous carbon pollution driving global warming.”
. . .
Carbon pollution imposes economic costs by damaging public health and driving destructive climate change. Working together, the White House Office of Management and Budget, the Treasury Department, the Department of Energy and eight other federal agencies put a dollar value on those damages, in an official figure called the “social cost of carbon” (SCC).
The SCC is used to calculate the benefits (i.e., avoided climate damages) of carbon pollution reduction. The administration puts the best estimate at $33 per ton of carbon pollution emitted in 2010.
The study also included government damage estimates from sulfur dioxide, a pollutant released simultaneously with carbon. Every year, sulfur dioxide causes thousands of premature deaths, respiratory ailments, heart disease and a host of ecosystem damages.
===========================
rushmc 18
billvon>Coal is by far the best choice . . .Hopefully it will be used in this capacity soon
It is failing pretty comprehensively.
>This can effectively double the rates needlessly . . .A waste of money
===========================
Clean energy least costly to power America’s electricity needs
Wed, 09/18/2013 - 7:59am
Springer
Findings show carbon pollution from power plants can be cut cost-effectively by using wind, solar and natural gas
It’s less costly to get electricity from wind turbines and solar panels than coal-fired power plants when climate change costs and other health impacts are factored in, according to a new study published in Springer’s Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences.
In fact—using the official U.S. government estimates of health and environmental costs from burning fossil fuels—the study shows it’s cheaper to replace a typical existing coal-fired power plant with a wind turbine than to keep the old plant running. And new electricity generation from wind could be more economically efficient than natural gas.
The findings show the nation can cut carbon pollution from power plants in a cost-effective way, by replacing coal-fired generation with cleaner options like wind, solar, and natural gas.
“Burning coal is a very costly way to make electricity. There are more efficient and sustainable ways to get power,” said Dr. Laurie Johnson, chief economist in the Climate and Clean Air Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “We can reduce health and climate change costs while reducing the dangerous carbon pollution driving global warming.”
. . .
Carbon pollution imposes economic costs by damaging public health and driving destructive climate change. Working together, the White House Office of Management and Budget, the Treasury Department, the Department of Energy and eight other federal agencies put a dollar value on those damages, in an official figure called the “social cost of carbon” (SCC).
The SCC is used to calculate the benefits (i.e., avoided climate damages) of carbon pollution reduction. The administration puts the best estimate at $33 per ton of carbon pollution emitted in 2010.
The study also included government damage estimates from sulfur dioxide, a pollutant released simultaneously with carbon. Every year, sulfur dioxide causes thousands of premature deaths, respiratory ailments, heart disease and a host of ecosystem damages.
===========================
Why dont you post your sources??
In any event, this "article" ignores the impact of double capacity needed for both. It also ignores the fact that few will continue to be built should the tax advantages be taken away.
It is the same science used to promote AWG
Oh, and I know why you dont post your sources
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
billvon 2,433
>Why dont you post your sources??
Sure. Author was Springer, a news service. It was published in ECN (electronic components news) a technical journal for engineers.
>In any event, this "article" ignores the impact of double capacity needed for both.
No, it doesn't, It takes into account the significantly reduced capacity factor from both solar and wind.
> It also ignores the fact that few will continue to be built should the tax advantages
>be taken away.
No, that's an assumption. The facts are that few coal plants are being built due to their rising costs.
Sure. Author was Springer, a news service. It was published in ECN (electronic components news) a technical journal for engineers.
>In any event, this "article" ignores the impact of double capacity needed for both.
No, it doesn't, It takes into account the significantly reduced capacity factor from both solar and wind.
> It also ignores the fact that few will continue to be built should the tax advantages
>be taken away.
No, that's an assumption. The facts are that few coal plants are being built due to their rising costs.
DanGQuoteMy point being that there is some harm in any of these policies. Good news for the environment. Hey, good news for 15k people. Bad news for a few thousand others.
It almost sounds like you're arguing for a centrally planned economy, comrade.
Negative. What I am suggesting is that people/towns/regions losing jobs/businesses/economic bases are not just being "anti-science" or earth haters. They are people who are coming up on the losing end and are losing plenty.
There are reasons out there why people would be opposed to such things as destroying the coal industry. For example, they lose livelihoods. It usually isn't due to any ill-intent on their parts.
Hopefully, those regions can change their economic focus into something else. But that's not likely - wealth creating industries are just too difficult to establish in the US, anymore.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
billvon 2,433
>They are people who are coming up on the losing end and are losing plenty.
Agreed. This is true whenever technology or society changes. A lot of horse buggy manufacturers were pretty bitter about the idea of cars. Piano players rued the advent of "talking pictures" and weapons manufacturers are pretty upset by the threat of peace.
(Of course that alone is not an argument to ban cars, or ban sound tracks in movies, or to maintain a continual state of war.)
Agreed. This is true whenever technology or society changes. A lot of horse buggy manufacturers were pretty bitter about the idea of cars. Piano players rued the advent of "talking pictures" and weapons manufacturers are pretty upset by the threat of peace.
(Of course that alone is not an argument to ban cars, or ban sound tracks in movies, or to maintain a continual state of war.)
turtlespeed 212
billvon>They are people who are coming up on the losing end and are losing plenty.
Agreed. This is true whenever technology or society changes. A lot of horse buggy manufacturers were pretty bitter about the idea of cars. Piano players rued the advent of "talking pictures" and weapons manufacturers are pretty upset by the threat of peace.
(Of course that alone is not an argument to ban cars, or ban sound tracks in movies, or to maintain a continual state of war.)
Who is saying "Ban" solar tech?
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
rushmc 18
billvon>Why dont you post your sources??
Sure. Author was Springer, a news service. It was published in ECN (electronic components news) a technical journal for engineers.
>In any event, this "article" ignores the impact of double capacity needed for both.
No, it doesn't, It takes into account the significantly reduced capacity factor from both solar and wind.
> It also ignores the fact that few will continue to be built should the tax advantages
>be taken away.
No, that's an assumption. The facts are that few coal plants are being built due to their rising costs.
Not an assumption
You forget I deal with the wind industry
They have made it very clear that building will stop if the tax incentives go away
and coal plant costs are rising in large part due to un-needed regulations spawned from those with a political agenda similar to yours
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
turtlespeed 212
rushmc***>Why dont you post your sources??
Sure. Author was Springer, a news service. It was published in ECN (electronic components news) a technical journal for engineers.
>In any event, this "article" ignores the impact of double capacity needed for both.
No, it doesn't, It takes into account the significantly reduced capacity factor from both solar and wind.
> It also ignores the fact that few will continue to be built should the tax advantages
>be taken away.
No, that's an assumption. The facts are that few coal plants are being built due to their rising costs.
Not an assumption
You forget I deal with the wind industry
They have made it very clear that building will stop if the tax incentives go away
and coal plant costs are rising in large part due to un-needed regulations spawned from those with a political agenda similar to yours
Well duh! they have to pay for those incentives somehow!
Peter, give me all your money, we have to pay Paul.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
billvon 2,433
>They have made it very clear that building will stop if the tax incentives go away
From a 2011 report on wind energy:
"The report also estimated that without the PTC extension, annual installations could drop to just 2 GW in 2013 and wind supported jobs could drop from 78,000 in 2012 to 41,000 in 2013."
So building will certainly slow down - but not stop.
>and coal plant costs are rising in large part due to un-needed regulations
Which regulations are unneeded?
From a 2011 report on wind energy:
"The report also estimated that without the PTC extension, annual installations could drop to just 2 GW in 2013 and wind supported jobs could drop from 78,000 in 2012 to 41,000 in 2013."
So building will certainly slow down - but not stop.
>and coal plant costs are rising in large part due to un-needed regulations
Which regulations are unneeded?
rushmc 18
turtlespeed******>Why dont you post your sources??
Sure. Author was Springer, a news service. It was published in ECN (electronic components news) a technical journal for engineers.
>In any event, this "article" ignores the impact of double capacity needed for both.
No, it doesn't, It takes into account the significantly reduced capacity factor from both solar and wind.
> It also ignores the fact that few will continue to be built should the tax advantages
>be taken away.
No, that's an assumption. The facts are that few coal plants are being built due to their rising costs.
Not an assumption
You forget I deal with the wind industry
They have made it very clear that building will stop if the tax incentives go away
and coal plant costs are rising in large part due to un-needed regulations spawned from those with a political agenda similar to yours
Well duh! they have to pay for those incentives somehow!
Peter, give me all your money, we have to pay Paul.
They keep saying that solar and wind can compete with coal
Not head to head they cant
MN has a law on the books now that requires investor owned utilities to have certin percentages of solar generation
It will be interesting to see what happens to the rates there
Soon
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rehmwa 2
billvonA few bits of good news for people who place a high priority on preserving our environment -
always has to be a PC cause....
how about just being happy that another technology field is emerging for the market to choose from
(now if we could only eliminate subsidies from all these industries to see if they are real or just painfully constructed - yes, including carbon industries too)
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
So it constitutes bad news for some, as well. It is understood that there are winners and losers. The issue becomes whether these people's bitterness can be seen as somewhat reasonable.
Good news for the environment can and often does mean bad news for others. Not saying that's bad or good but it is what it is.
Not just coal mine workers, but the workers who make the mining equipment, the transportation workers, the workers who make the transportation equipment and all the workers employed in the support industries for the above workers (housing, food, etc.).
I intend to live forever -- so far, so good.