PV Solar - If not Florida, Where?

[mtdoc]

The main role of the government is to protect our liberty, not to provide us food or energy. What you promote is the other way around. Cherish freedom.

The problem with this line of simplistic reasoning is that it does not work.  Plenty of examples of countries whose leaders fail to be interested in the basic needs of it's citizens - citizens who have lots of freedom.  I've traveled enough in Latin America and Africa to see plenty of countries where the average citizens have plenty of personal freedom and the government provides very little support for basic infrastructure.

Look around: every country on the planet whose citizens have a decent standard of living have governments who historically and currently have invested in the infrastructure needed to ensure electricity, transportation, education and communication (and with the exception of the USA, health care) for its citizens.

The truth is that without that government investment, economic activity will not flourish on anything but the most rudimentary level.

Lack of basic government regulations  does not lead to economic or personal liberty - quite the contrary it leads to Crony Capitalism, oligarchy and/or corporatocracy.

I absolutely believe that government has grown excessively, wastes large amounts of money and has become in many case way too invasive and intrusive into peoples lives -in some cases it has become outright dangerous in it's attempts to preserve its power in the name of "national security".

But too many of the libertarian/"conservative"/Tea Party acolytes want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I've known plenty of Libertarians (including the former head of the California Libertarian Party and my local Libertarian candidate for congress) and the problem is that for many of them the mantra of "less government, lower taxes, no subsidies, etc" becomes the hammer and every problem they see as a nail.   Some are intellectually honest and truly believe they can make the world better but way too many are in my opinion just consciously or unconsciously greedy people with an "I got mine" attitude.  They hide behind the idea of personal freedom above all in an effort preserve what they have.  That is their "pet project"

[tom66]

What's "unrealized externalities"? What an oxymoron.

Maybe a poor way of writing it; I'm not an economist. I mean, an externality that is not immediately obvious to the average Joe.

For example, they might not associate city traffic or coal pollution with increased rates of childhood asthma. The cost of this is on Joe, not on the producer of the pollution, so it is an externality. And it is unrealised,  because Joe may not associate it immediately as causing it.

Of note is that asthma cases are significantly higher in city neighbourhoods; I wonder why?

As to externalities, everything has its externalities. Your very existence has a negative externality on the environment, this forum, and the rest of humanity.

What are you going to do about it?

Nothing. Really, there is very little I can or want to do about it. However it is possible to replace coal power with nuclear, which I am personally in favour of. Nuclear waste is still a concern but future reactors can run on the waste of older generation reactors. The problem is, there is an enormous amount of red tape regarding nuclear reactor design that the industry is too slow to adapt. It is now far more expensive per lifetime MWh to construct a nuclear power plant over a coal or nat gas power plant hence why they are rarely built these days.

As far as safety is concerned, nuclear is extremely safe, but like airline disasters, when it goes wrong, it can go really wrong. This makes promoting nuclear a big PR problem. As far as I am concerned, Greenpeace's anti-nuclear stance is not helping and I wish they could see the big picture. There is no current practical level of grid storage that could support a pure solar/wind solution that they seem to promote. In the mean time, nuclear can provide the necessary base load.

Personally I think gen 3/4 nuclear + wind + mild solar is the way to go in the UK, with low-waste nuclear representing about 75 to 80% of the contribution. Where possible geothermal & hydro can be used, location dependent.

With all the coal kills FUD it's useful to have a more balanced perspective.  Fossil energy improved any aspects of our lives including infant mortality. Look at the big picture.

I agree that fossil fuels have been very beneficial to our economy and development as a species. Enormously beneficial in fact. But that has come at a huge cost to us and future generations. We have reached a level of technological development at which we can change this and make it better for everyone.

[SgtRock]

Greetings EEVBees:

--The financial crisis was in large part caused by the collapse of the real estate market. The collapse of the housing bubble was caused in large part by the Community Reinvestment Act, which along with threats from federal banking regulators forced banks to make loans to people whose credit worthiness would not otherwise allowed them to obtain home loans. Before the collapse the banks were accused of "redlining" and forced to make bad loans to people with bad credit. After the collapse, banks were accused of predation for making these loans. Heads we win, tails you lose. For an exhaustive article on the CRA and the collapse of the housing bubble, see the below article.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-cra-debate-a-users-guide-2009-6

--Now, back to topic before the moderators close this thread. I just cannot see how pounding sand down a rat hole like Ivanpah, which even Google says it is not going to repeat, does anything but increase the use of fossil fuels. Oh well it is the thought that counts, right? Ivanpah is going to be using in its inefficient boilers, enough natural gas to produce 200,000 MWh if used in efficient  steam turbines, in order to produce maybe 350,000 MWh if they are lucky.

--I was hoping someone would bring up another large solar project that was performing better than Ivanpah, but alas no joy. Instead we are told that it does not make any difference if any of these rat holes perform as promised because coal is dirty. And AGW, for der warmers (settled science nya nya nya) is really really important, until nuclear is mentioned, then it is not so important, Tom66 being the exception.

"I don't know what the term is in Austrian ..."
Barack Hussein Obama  1961  -

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[dannyf]

Of note is that asthma cases are significantly higher in city neighbourhoods; I wonder why?

All the coal-power plants are built in the cities, not in the countryside where asthma cases are significantly lower?



Had that premature infant been burn in the alternative universe where only expensive green energy is available, her parents would not have been able to afford to light up the room. Worse yet, she was born at night, none of the electronics would had any power to assist her.

Talk about "externality".

[tom66]

Had that premature infant been burn in the alternative universe where only expensive green energy is available, her parents would not have been able to afford to light up the room. Worse yet, she was born at night, none of the electronics would had any power to assist her.

Completely agree, which is why solar and wind are not practical as a significant part of the energy supply. Nuclear, although a fossil fuel by definition, is far cleaner than other options, and there are proven reserves of >200,000 years-nuclear-power of uranium available in the US alone.

Grid storage is the only way to make solar/wind work practically, but you'd need something like ~500GWh for the UK. For comparison that's nearly 6 million Tesla 85kWh packs  which cost about $25,000 each to make, or $150 billion dollars, if you assume all materials cost the same.

So anyone who suggests solar PV or solar thermo-electric, or wind, can supply the electrical load of a country is an idiot or worse, a Greenpeace supporter. Solar can supply a portion of daytime electrical load, reducing the load on nuclear. And wind can contribute something as well. I prefer wind over solar myself.

Renewables are part of the solution: but they are not the only solution.

All the coal-power plants are built in the cities, not in the countryside where asthma cases are significantly lower?

Quite a few coal power plants in the UK are  built near large population centres. But the main contributor to the increased rates of asthma in cities is pollution from ICE vehicles, not coal power.

[mtdoc]

Renewables are part of the solution: but they are not the only solution.

I agree - but there is no solution. Nothing will ever be able to completely replace fossil fuels.  Solar, Wind and hydro combined could have - had we dedicated a larger effort into their development - gone a long ways towards sustaining widespread electrification over the long term - but we've waited too long and done too little to transition to it.  Nuclear - for lots of reasons - will not (and should not IMO - though there's room for honest disagreement on this) be a solution either.

[mtdoc]

Quite a few coal power plants in the UK are  built near large population centres. But the main contributor to the increased rates of asthma in cities is pollution from ICE vehicles, not coal power.

But not true in Beijing and several other large Chinese citties. For example:

Beijing Shuts Big Coal-Fired Power Plant to Ease Smog

[tom66]

It sure would be great if fusion had a massive breakthrough soon. I think a lot more resources should be diverted to be. To be honest if it was a choice of solar subsidy or fusion research grant I'd chose the latter.

I still have concerns that there are practical issues with the technology that may well mean it's not that practical, such as sustaining the extremely high fusion density inside the core.

Fission has a lot of issues, including waste disposal. However, of all the currently available solutions, I think fission is the "least worst".

[zapta]

The problem with this line of simplistic reasoning is that it does not work.  Plenty of examples of countries whose leaders fail to be interested in the basic needs of it's citizens - citizens who have lots of freedom.  I've traveled enough in Latin America and Africa to see plenty of countries where the average citizens have plenty of personal freedom and the government provides very little support for basic infrastructure.

This countries are typically corrupt with the politicians skimming the public fund. This is not liberty, this is corruption.

But too many of the libertarian/"conservative"/Tea Party acolytes want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

You are confusing libertarians/Tea Party with anarchists.

I absolutely believe that government has grown excessively, wastes large amounts of money and has become in many case way too invasive and intrusive into peoples lives -in some cases it has become outright dangerous in it's attempts to preserve its power in the name of "national security".

Personal liberty and collectivism are on the two ends of a continuum. I don't bother myself with the theoretical extremes. It's more important to me to identify where we are now on that continuum and in what direction we should push the needle.  The quote above suggests that you would like to move it toward liberty and if so we are in agreement.

[zapta]

Had that premature infant been burn in the alternative universe where only expensive green energy is available, her parents would not have been able to afford to light up the room. Worse yet, she was born at night, none of the electronics would had any power to assist her.

At night, the parent could use this green energy technology to keep their infant alive:

[mtdoc]

This countries are typically corrupt with the politicians skimming the public fund. This is not liberty, this is corruption.

And history has shown that is the natural outcome when the libertarian ideal of no subsidies and no regulation of private enterprise is put into practice.

Please name one developed nation with a high standard of living which has not historically and currently subsidized development of infrastructure including electrification.

[zapta]

But not true in Beijing and several other large Chinese citties. For example:

Beijing Shuts Big Coal-Fired Power Plant to Ease Smog

Look at the big picture, life expectancy in china keeps growing and is higher than ever, heavily driven by fossil energy.

[dannyf]

Maybe a poor way of writing it; I'm not an economist. I mean, an externality that is not immediately obvious to the average Joe.

The average Joe would be smart enough to know 1) what externality is; or 2) to not use terms that they don't have firm grasp on -> that's call common sense, something extremely uncommon amongst the elitists who think they are smarter than they really are.

If you want to talk about the cost of coal power, you may also want to know how many family will have to go to bad cold and hungry because of higher energy cost; how many kids would not be able to use their computers as much as they could; how many poor infants would die because the world has suddenly decided that it is more important for some elitists to feel better to fly their private jets, or to heat up their swimming pool, or to keep their 10,000sqft mansion cooled in the summer, or to get a bigger fatter carried interests from their VC investments, ...

If you want to talk about being immoral, being unfair, being greedy, being evil, think about taking money from those who can least afford such costs and give it to the rich and powerful and the entitled.

Unfortunately, for the tree huggers and the liberal socialist environmental extremists, being moral, being fair aren't part of their vocabulary.

And it is unrealised,  because Joe may not associate it immediately as causing it.

You may want to want to learn up on "rational expectation" (Muth) and "efficient market" (Fama).

If you want to sound smart, you better be smart.

[mtdoc]

But not true in Beijing and several other large Chinese citties. For example:

Beijing Shuts Big Coal-Fired Power Plant to Ease Smog

Look at the big picture, life expectancy in china keeps growing and is higher than ever, heavily driven by fossil energy.

And that is relevant how?  I've seen no one argue here that fossil fuels have not provided some benefit to society.  But  that is irrelevant to the point that Coal fired electricity is very dirty and can cause heavy amounts of air pollution and ill health effects.

The question is can't we do better than late 19th century technology? And how do we extend the availability of a very finite resource (fossil fuels) so that the things only they can do (not make electricity) are available for as long possible.

[dannyf]

But not true in Beijing and several other large Chinese citties. For example:

That's just embarrassing, even by the lower-than-low tree hugger standard.

Even a "Wallmart" goer would be able to tell the difference between association and causation.

[tom66]

The average Joe would be smart enough to know 1) what externality is; or 2) to not use terms that they don't have firm grasp on -> that's call common sense, something extremely uncommon amongst the elitists who think they are smarter than they really are.

I think if you ask 100 average Joes what an externality is, when refering to economics, less than 20% would know or be able to explain it.    But, maybe I'm just too cynical?  They would probably understand the concept if explained, it's just common sense.

If you want to talk about the cost of coal power, you may also want to know how many family will have to go to bad cold and hungry because of higher energy cost; how many kids would not be able to use their computers as much as they could; how many poor infants would die because the world has suddenly decided that it is more important for some elitists to feel better to fly their private jets, or to heat up their swimming pool, or to keep their 10,000sqft mansion cooled in the summer, or to get a bigger fatter carried interests from their VC investments, ....

Well, for the record I don't own a private jet or a mansion and my swimming pool is made of rubber.

What about the increased health costs of lung/respiratory diseases caused by coal pollution? In the USA for example, it's very rare to have 100% health cover. So in your example, why don't you consider the costs to the family if that child suffers a serious asthma attack? Except, in that case it's a few families with a massive bill. Even if you consider a country like the UK where health cover is near universal, this raises the cost of healthcare for everyone else. So while it might not impact on the per kWh cost, it will impact on the per family cost.

[tom66]

Look at the big picture, life expectancy in china keeps growing and is higher than ever, heavily driven by fossil energy.

One thing to consider about life expectancy charts is a great deal of it is driven by improvements in the life expectancy of infants and children, and less by people actually living longer.

Young life expectancy is driven mainly by improved medical care and pollution is less important.

[dannyf]

I think if you ask 100 average Joes what an externality is, when refering to economics, less than 20% would know or be able to explain it.   

That's the beauty of living in a free country: you have the right to think as you wish, however ludicrous such thinking may be.

Well, for the record I don't own a private jet or a mansion and my swimming pool is made of rubber.

Thank God for some justice,

So in your example, why don't you consider the costs to the family if that child suffers a serious asthma attack?

We the average Joe would first try to establish the linkage between asthma attacks and coal power plants. After that, we the average Joe would  perform rigorous analysis, listing a set of options / alternative, performing a cost-benefit analysis, and letting the people decide what the course forward would be.

If we happened to live in a totalitarian society, the elitists / rulers would then impose a solution, however ludicrous / inefficient / irrationale that may be, onto the rest of the society, under the false pretense that they know what's better for us because we the average Joe are deemed to be too stupid to realize the 'unrealized externalities" of coal power plants.

History has shown, repeatedly, which system has worked out better, however imperfect it is. And millions of people have paid dearly when such decisions have been imposed onto them.

Yet, there are countless elitists who are not smart enough to know just how stupid they are.

[dannyf]

One thing to consider about life expectancy charts is a great deal of it is driven by improvements in the life expectancy of infants and children,

Since those infants are children have all been supposedly killed off by those evil power plants, wouldn't they have seen the biggest ***decline*** in life expectancy?













Seriously, I have not seen a person who is as good as you are in arguing against your own positions.

The best strategy for you to win your argument apparently is to not say a single word,

[tom66]

Since those infants are children have all been supposedly killed off by those evil power plants, wouldn't they have seen the biggest ***decline*** in life expectancy?

Huh? I did not ever say pollution **kills** young children?

It can cause life long health problems which cost money to treat and cause problems in later life.

It CAN also cause immediate health problems, but that is less of a concern, than say the lifelong problems and cost to society.

[miguelvp]

The average Joe would be smart enough to know 1) what externality is; or 2) to not use terms that they don't have firm grasp on -> that's call common sense, something extremely uncommon amongst the elitists who think they are smarter than they really are.

I think if you ask 100 average Joes what an externality is, when refering to economics, less than 20% would know or be able to explain it.    But, maybe I'm just too cynical?  They would probably understand the concept if explained, it's just common sense.

Yes you are too cynical. Just because they might not know the word it doesn't mean they don't know what it is or how to explain it.
Ask your 100 average Joes about what they think about the decline of the bee population, they might not know what colony collapse disorder means but they know the economic impact of the bee population decline.

[tom66]

We the average Joe would first try to establish the linkage between asthma attacks and coal power plants. After that, we the average Joe would  perform rigorous analysis, listing a set of options / alternative, performing a cost-benefit analysis, and letting the people decide what the course forward would be.

I agree - there is a balance between cost (health issues, environmental damage) and benefit (improvements to living, health, social status, wellbeing, etc.)

Where exactly this balance should be met is under debate here, not whether or not there is a  balance. I personally am not convinced the free market can appropriately select this balance because most people cannot choose who provides their electricity (on the power plant level, not the reseller level) or have any control over its production.

In the UK you can buy a "green tarriff" from providers; it costs a few extra pence per kWh (that's maybe a 10~20% rise in total cost of electricity.) But, all our energy comes from the grid. These providers just claim to invest the extra in renewable power. I really can't see how that helps much, if anything. Seems more like a "feel good" factor than anything.

[dannyf]

They are currently at over 86% renewable for their energy mix: https://www.ecotricity.co.uk/our-green-energy/energy-independence/our-fuel-mix

Wow!

Say it ain't so,

[dannyf]

I never thought there would be 150k strong "people" who would pay premium prices so dear Al Gore could live in his 30,000sqft mansion, with heated in-ground pool and breezy a/c on full blast, and jet around the world telling people how to minimize their carbon footprint, and to drum up demand "green energy" to maximize the return on his "green energy" investments, while harassing masseuses, etc.

The only thing green I can see is his bank account.

What has happened to our education systems?

If we ever needed the government to play a role, those folks would have benefited tremendously from some governmental protection from their own actions,

[tom66]

Not sure how it works in other countries, but in the UK, there are multiple electricity suppliers which compete for customers. A good example of a lightly regulated free market working well.

Each supplier buys the amount of energy that their customers use from appropriate other suppliers (or in the case of larger companies they own the power plants themselves, EDF and npower being two examples.) They then sell this into the grid, to everyone.

They all connect to the same grid so essentially everyone uses the same energy mix but by buying it from Ecotricity or other suppliers they are contributing their energy into the grid. Which makes the grid slightly greener - but it's still far from actually being clean  by anyone's definition.

But if all the coal plants went offline tomorrow - even in mid-day sun - you'd lose your supply. I don't think much of feed-in tariffs. An enormous amount of renewables would need to be constructed to supply a low-solar and moderate-wind country like the UK and give anyone "true" green energy. Which means nuclear... or lots and lots of grid storage.