HOORAY FOR OBAMA!

[Reese Tora]

First of all, thankyou fro the article.  I recommend you read it as soon as you have the chance.  executive summary is that this is an article using/reporting the more accurate measurements that determined that CO2 was laging behind temperature increase by an average of 800 years +- 200 years.  The articles says that there is no way that CO2 is driving the increase of temperature at the poles, though it does say that the CO2 measurements coincide with deglaciation elsewhere without going very far into it(I would want to see an article regarding deglaciation specifically).

In the case of global warming, CO2 absorbs the radiation that is attempting to leave the atmosphere.  In the case of Snowball Earth (if I understand it correctly), the atmosphere is so reflective that insufficient energy reaches the Earth.  Neither of these are the inherent NATURE (as you so put it) of CO2, but rather different actions that are enabled or coincident with the rise of CO2.

My analogy is an attempt to explain that two disparate effects can have the same proximate source, but explaining it like that is pretty dry.  It's much more engaging when you explain it using Nasrudin.

Funny, when I made the exact same argument using Arsenic, you had no problem with it.

Snowball earth is a case where the earth's surface became too reflective.  Normally, the light from the sun passes through the atmosphere and strikes the earth, which absorbs the light and emits infrared radiation.  Greenhouse gasses are misnamed in that they don't trap heat in the sense that a greenhouse's glass reflects the infrared and keeps it from escaping.  Rather, greenhouse gasses absorb infrared in various wavelengths as it radiates from the earth's surface.  In snowball earth, the ice covering caused by the cold temperatures acts as a mirror reflecting light back into space without converting it to the infrared wavelengths that normally would be absorbed by the greenhouse gasses. 

Fun fact: It's believed that snowball earth is caused by the presence of land at both poles which messes with the circulation provided by the oceans, allowing the polar ice to expand towards the equator, which in turn reflects more energy into space, a vicious cycle that eventually coveres teh earth's oceans with ice.  How lucky we are, if this is true, to live in an age where only one pole is landlocked.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

Gah! Tezkat made a long post... I feel like I should read it, but it's sooooooooooooo long.

I read it. Don't torture yourself.

[Darkmoon]

I read it, and it was a good post...

[Tapewolf]

Tezkat didn't seem to take decommissioning costs into account with Nuclear, which IIRC is where it starts to look kinda not good.  Otherwise, it has been one of the highlights of the thread, I think.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

Nor did he take into account any repair or replacement costs for solar panels, which I seem to recall some people have calculated that they kick in about where the panel starts making money... and the recycling costs are astronomical, because they're basically a complex film spread under or over a sheet of glass (I forget which, and it varies, I think, depending on what sort of solar panel)

Despite that, it was, as D says, a good post.

[Reese Tora]

Regarding Tazkat's post, tax credits is value someone ends up paying, and that someone tends to be the tax payer when other services the goernment provides are cut or taxes are raised.  I don't know how that long island authority works, but I suspect it's another government entity, which means someone's tax money goes to funding it, and it's their tax money be spend as an incentive.  Tax credits hide the cost and shift it to other people, but it's a cost that still has to be paid.

[superluser]

Nor did he take into account any repair or replacement costs for solar panels, which I seem to recall some people have calculated that they kick in about where the panel starts making money... and the recycling costs are astronomical, because they're basically a complex film spread under or over a sheet of glass (I forget which, and it varies, I think, depending on what sort of solar panel)

Yeah, I strongly doubt that traditional solar PV is going to be a large part of the future grid.  You might see the infrared PVs in some sort of corner cases, but I think solar thermal will probably be more efficient than solar PV for the foreseeable future.

Tax credits hide the cost and shift it to other people, but it's a cost that still has to be paid.

One easy response to that is that the money gets paid to Americans, instead of corrupt foreign leaders.

[Valynth]

Tax credits hide the cost and shift it to other people, but it's a cost that still has to be paid.

One easy response to that is that the money gets paid to Americans, instead of corrupt foreign leaders.

uh...  America has an abundant supply of coal.  We also have more oil in Alaska than all of Saudi Arabia if our environmental groups would let us drill in the frigid tundra it's underneath rather than claiming it's an evergreen forest.

[Darkmoon]

Tax credits hide the cost and shift it to other people, but it's a cost that still has to be paid.

One easy response to that is that the money gets paid to Americans, instead of corrupt foreign leaders.

uh...  America has an abundant supply of coal.  We also have more oil in Alaska than all of Saudi Arabia if our environmental groups would let us drill in the frigid tundra it's underneath rather than claiming it's an evergreen forest.

That's not entirely true. There a re parts of Alaska that's already producing oil (the part that gives every citizen of Alaska a kickback). Other parts of Alaska, however, are only theorized to have plenty of oil, but there's no way to know how far or how long it lasts without testing, and drilling, et all. And that testing and drilling yada yada damages the ecosystem that lives there in ways we can't even imagine.

The reason not to drill in areas that are protected for their ecosystem is because the costs to that ecosystem is more than, possibly, could be underneath the ground.

Thanks to the West Wing for that.

Besides, if we tap that oil, we're still burning oil, and it would be better just to get away from that. It's not a renewable resource.

[Reese Tora]

Tax credits hide the cost and shift it to other people, but it's a cost that still has to be paid.

One easy response to that is that the money gets paid to Americans, instead of corrupt foreign leaders.

I was more refering to the power generated by wind, nuclear, and large scale solar power. (I am a proponent of building more wind, solar, and nuclear plants, but I must be realistic about the costs involved)

In these cases, the companies are being paid money by the government to have lower prices for the public, who pays the taxes that pays them to keep the prices down.

In the case of the home solar, yes, it's tax payer money being paid back to the tax payer for providing their own power(and then some, in some cases), but that's not my major concern, though it can be argued that the home energy producer is getting paid back with money from other households who do not benefit from those individuals' power production.  The federal governemnt has a responsibility to legislate items that provide a common benefit, as roads and bridges taht support heavy commerce and interstate travel do, not things that provide a benifit to the few, like bridges that only serve 60 people on a remote island.  It can be debated which end of the spectrum individual solar panel subsidies falls towards.

[superluser]

We also have more oil in Alaska than all of Saudi Arabia if our environmental groups would let us drill in the frigid tundra it's underneath rather than claiming it's an evergreen forest.

Really?  I'd like to double check your figures.  Where did you get them?

[Cvstos]

USGS says a max of 6 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil. The EIA says we used 20 million barrels a day in 2007. At that rate, it's a year's worth of oil, at best.

[superluser]

USGS says a max of 6 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil. The EIA says we used 20 million barrels a day in 2007. At that rate, it's a year's worth of oil, at best.

Yeah, I don't trust the USGS.  It's not really their job.  It is, however, the EIA's job.

According to the EIA, we've got proved reserves of 4 billion bbl in Alaska.  I don't know if that includes ANWR, but that would only add 1.4 billion.  Saudi Arabia has 267 billion, and they can produce in excess of 10 billion bbl per day.

One easy response to that is that the money gets paid to Americans, instead of corrupt foreign leaders.

I was more refering to the power generated by wind, nuclear, and large scale solar power.

That's what I was talking about.

At least with the tax incentives, the money goes to American companies and stimulates the American economy instead of increasing our trade deficit with foreign nations like Saudi Arabia.

[Cvstos]

Yeah, I don't trust the USGS.  It's not really their job.  It is, however, the EIA's job.

According to the EIA, we've got proved reserves of 4 billion bbl in Alaska.  I don't know if that includes ANWR, but that would only add 1.4 billion.  Saudi Arabia has 267 billion, and they can produce in excess of 10 billion bbl per day.

That's actually right in line with the USGS. The 6BBO figure I used was actually me rounding up one of the better case scenarios from them.

[Reese Tora]

One easy response to that is that the money gets paid to Americans, instead of corrupt foreign leaders.

I was more refering to the power generated by wind, nuclear, and large scale solar power.

That's what I was talking about.

At least with the tax incentives, the money goes to American companies and stimulates the American economy instead of increasing our trade deficit with foreign nations like Saudi Arabia.

If you say so... I'd want to do a little research on what countries are producing the wind turbines and solar cells that are being installed by the american power companies, though, before I made a blanket statement about it keeping the money in the US and avoiding a trade deficit.

[superluser]

If you say so... I'd want to do a little research on what countries are producing the wind turbines and solar cells that are being installed by the american power companies, though, before I made a blanket statement about it keeping the money in the US and avoiding a trade deficit.

No one is producing enough wind turbines and solar cells to power the US grid yet.  The point is that we invest the tax incentives to make sure that these industries are developed here instead of abroad.

It's not a great argument, and I'm not sure how much stock I put in it, but it is an argument.

[Reese Tora]

No one is producing enough wind turbines and solar cells to power the US grid yet.  The point is that we invest the tax incentives to make sure that these industries are developed here instead of abroad.

It's not a great argument, and I'm not sure how much stock I put in it, but it is an argument.

I agree, we need to invest in it, I just think that we need to be realistic about the costs.

I did find that GM is the second largest producer of turbines, and the US has the second largest wind turbine coverage in power generated, so you've got that going for your arguiment.

[Tezkat]

I do believe the proper response is tl;dr.

I'd try to make a dramatic reading for you so that you could listen to it while doing something else, but alas, everything in my apartment (including microphones) picks up EWTN, so unless you want to listen to me *and* Mother Angelica, you'd be better off just reading it.

Yeah... I do write a lot of tl;dr posts, don't I? Maybe I should start producing podcast versions...

Tezkat didn't seem to take decommissioning costs into account with Nuclear, which IIRC is where it starts to look kinda not good.

True, decommissioning a reactor can cost upwards of 1/4 the cost of putting it in there in the first place. However, that's indirectly considered in my numbers because I had the mortgage paid off, as it were, after only 20 years to match the other cases. A new nuclear plant has an operating life of 40+. For the most part, the problem people have been having with decommissioining reactors is that the owners have been pocketing the difference rather than saving it for the end.

Most of America's current reactor fleet have already passed their expected life spans. In many cases, it's been cheaper to repair and upgrade ("uprate") them to squeeze out a few more decades of use than tear them down.


By trotting out actual numbers, I was trying to portray how things would look to business planners. The cost of fossil fuel electricity is mostly fuel, whereas cleaner power sources have heavily frontloaded costs but are cheap to run. In the absence of those tax credits, investors in cleaner power would be forking out billions of dollars to lose money until fossil fuels got really expensive. I know that some of the newer wind farms in New Mexico, for instance, have been selling their electricity to utilities companies below $0.07/kWh, which suggests that they're eating the difference now in hopes of being much more profitable later. That's all well and good, but when your business plan depends on Production Tax Credits that are renewed, then not renewed, then renewed again but only for a year... you're more at the mercy of Washington than the market. That's not an environment conducive to attracting capital or running a business.

Nor did he take into account any repair or replacement costs for solar panels, which I seem to recall some people have calculated that they kick in about where the panel starts making money... and the recycling costs are astronomical, because they're basically a complex film spread under or over a sheet of glass (I forget which, and it varies, I think, depending on what sort of solar panel)

What... you guys wanted a detailed business plan?

The panels themselves are pretty rugged these days; some do actually have a MTBF in the 20+ year range. Sure, a few cells might burn out or fade, but others will last longer. O&M costs would depend on the importance of maintaining your rig at full capacity.

Recycling costs pose an interesting issue. However, they could also represent future business opportunities and income streams. It's cheaper to reuse silicon that's already been refined, for instance, and a number of the rare metals used in other technologies may be recoverable at a profit.

Regarding Tazkat's post, tax credits is value someone ends up paying, and that someone tends to be the tax payer when other services the goernment provides are cut or taxes are raised.  I don't know how that long island authority works, but I suspect it's another government entity, which means someone's tax money goes to funding it, and it's their tax money be spend as an incentive.  Tax credits hide the cost and shift it to other people, but it's a cost that still has to be paid.

LIPA is indeed state-owned, but it isn't taxpayer funded in the sense you suggest. It's profitable on its own, and most of its capital infusions come from bond issues. I only picked it because they have some of the most attractive solar panel incentives around.

Providing incentives to install residental PV isn't throwing money away, even in the case of investor-owned utilities. It's actually a good deal for the power company, because it protects them against expensive peak load spikes and gives them customer-subsidized generating capacity that they can resell elsewhere. I might also add that this is a sneaky way to circumvent deregulation that split up grid and generating utilities.


Deregulation of the electrical grids in the USA has failed rather spectacularly in most places. Rather than introducing an open, competitive framework as promised, it somehow managed to preserve (even enhance) a lot of the old monopolistic characteristics while adding a lot of administrative overhead and profiteering. Electricity demand is fairly inelastic, after all.

Hidden from the consumers, most of the deregulated markets operate on a sort of bid system. Generators offer blocks of electricity at a certain price, and the grid owners buy it up according to demand, starting with the cheapest. Now, this poses a number of problems for renewables.

Most renewable power is intermittent. It's either sunny/windy, or it isn't. Renewable generators have no way of scheduling the weather around demands for electricity, so they have to waste capacity that isn't being purchased, store it until demand arises, or have non-renewable backup generators pick up the slack--all of which raise costs. There's no easy solution. China, for instance, requires utilities to purchase power preferentially from renewable sources, so its renewables are always operating at optimal capacity, but that obviously circumvents anything resembling free market economics. Several states have a slightly more market-oriented version of that called Renewable Portfolio Standards, which require utilities to purchase a certain percentage of their power from renewables, but without accompanying price signals, there's no incentive to install more than the minimum.

As you saw from my quickie price analyses, renewables have huge capital outlays to recoup, whereas combustion plants are more or less marking up fuel. It's not that much more expensive to run a natural gas turbine at 50% capacity than at 100%, but failing to sell half your wind capacity doubles your prices. If they can't compete on price, they lose money.


Again, the policy decision to make here, if you're going to be serious about energy security, is how much of the taxpayer's dollars you're willing to invest now to protect the country against a near future where fossil fuels don't look so good. Investment at home breeds innovation at home. If you wait too long, then those dollars will be going overseas as the country is forced to import foreign technology to meet its energy needs.

What the tax credits are mainly subsidizing at the moment, at least in the case of solar, are jobs for the Americans installing the panels and rewiring your buildings.

Yeah, I don't trust the USGS.  It's not really their job.  It is, however, the EIA's job.

According to the EIA, we've got proved reserves of 4 billion bbl in Alaska.  I don't know if that includes ANWR, but that would only add 1.4 billion.  Saudi Arabia has 267 billion, and they can produce in excess of 10 billion bbl per day.

Million bbl per day...

Anyways... yeah, if you pulled all the oil out of Alaska, you might be able to satisfy America's oil needs for... um... a year? It's not exactly a recipe for energy security. Valynth may have been thinking of the Arctic Sea, for which I've seen guestimates upwards of half a trillion bbl. If that's the case, then it's not the environmental groups you have to worry about. Those reserves don't belong to the USA.

Incidentally, they represent a store of the CO2 that, 50 million years ago, kept the poles ice free and covered with pretty green foliage. It took the hardworking little plants there nearly a million years to suck the stuff out of the atmosphere. Putting it back might not be such a good idea... although it would be wicked cool to SCUBA dive the ruins of Disneyworld.

I agree, we need to invest in it, I just think that we need to be realistic about the costs.

I did find that GM is the second largest producer of turbines, and the US has the second largest wind turbine coverage in power generated, so you've got that going for your arguiment.

It's GE that makes wind turbines, not GM. (Thankfully, since GE is still solvent. ) They're behind Vestas of Denmark, which is still the market leader by a fair bit.

The current American leader in solar power, First Solar, has moved most of its manufacturing capacity abroad. Basically, everyone else has been throwing incentives at solar power, so they went where the market is. Americans are way behind in the solar energy industry, although a few of the startups I mentioned (like Nanosolar and Sunrgi) look very promising. If they can take their innovations to scale and keep the jobs at home, things might start looking up.

[superluser]

Million bbl per day...

I swear that said billion when I read it.

Anyway, I'll probably put something else here after I read the rest of your message.

EDIT: Well, I read it. ->SOMETHING<-

[Reese Tora]

I agree, we need to invest in it, I just think that we need to be realistic about the costs.

I did find that GM is the second largest producer of turbines, and the US has the second largest wind turbine coverage in power generated, so you've got that going for your arguiment.

It's GE that makes wind turbines, not GM. (Thankfully, since GE is still solvent. ) They're behind Vestas of Denmark, which is still the market leader by a fair bit.

The current American leader in solar power, First Solar, has moved most of its manufacturing capacity abroad. Basically, everyone else has been throwing incentives at solar power, so they went where the market is. Americans are way behind in the solar energy industry, although a few of the startups I mentioned (like Nanosolar and Sunrgi) look very promising. If they can take their innovations to scale and keep the jobs at home, things might start looking up.

Gawd, considering how many times I retyped that post, you'd think I would have gotten typing GM instead of GE out of my system!

Wait, no, I blame my source, Wikipedia.  It's not my fault, even though they got it right.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

Yeah... I do write a lot of tl;dr posts, don't I? Maybe I should start producing podcast versions...

Only if you do them in the style of Yahtzee. ;-]

What... you guys wanted a detailed business plan?

No, merely notice taken of the significant details involved in your assumptions. ;-]