Green New Deal

[TheTalkingMule]

Who's excluding nuclear from anything? Go ahead and build plant right now, the entire regulatory process could likely be scratched with this EPA. No one's building new nuclear because it's 5x as expensive as solar/wind+storage. And everyone's also seen Chernobyl by now.

 

[nwdiver]

Shows the green new deal is more about socialism than it is about climate change. If you really thought that CO2 was going to be such a disaster you would not be pushing all the the socialist and excluding nuclear energy.

Which way do you want this to go? The 'right-wing' solution where we tax carbon and let the free market sort it out so we get yellow vest protests here OR... an acknowledgement that we need to ensure that those that can afford to shoulder the cost of the transition and have benefited the most from our fools fuel addiction pay the lions share of that cost.....

What's your answer to kicking our pathetic and disgraceful addiction to fools fuel?

 

[jerry33]

Who's excluding nuclear from anything? Go ahead and build plant right now, the entire regulatory process could likely be scratched with this EPA. No one's building new nuclear because it's 5x as expensive as solar/wind+storage. And everyone's also seen Chernobyl by now.

But the main problem is time. You can get wind or solar up inside of three years. Natural gas inside of ten, everything else will take much longer. That's why utility planning used to have a map 12 to 15 years out, but now they don't bother planning that long because they can whip up solar or wind much quicker. Battery storage is going to follow once the regulatory hurdles are overcome.

 

[SageBrush]

Which way do you want this to go? The 'right-wing' solution where we tax carbon and let the free market sort it out so we get yellow vest protests here OR... an acknowledgement that we need to ensure that those that can afford to shoulder the cost of the transition and have benefited the most from our fools fuel addiction pay the lions share of that cost.....

What's your answer to kicking our pathetic and disgraceful addiction to fools fuel?

I am of the firm ideological belief that it should be both

 

[rays427]

But the main problem is time. You can get wind or solar up inside of three years. Natural gas inside of ten, everything else will take much longer. That's why utility planning used to have a map 12 to 15 years out, but now they don't bother planning that long because they can whip up solar or wind much quicker. Battery storage is going to follow once the regulatory hurdles are overcome.

There is no way you could completely replace fossil fuels with just wind and solar within 5 years. The problem is that you would need 5 times or more of the rated capacity plus a huge amount of storage because the intermittent nature of wind and solar. The main problem with nuclear is the folks that have been against nuclear have made the permits so difficult to obtain which has driven up the costs. If you had a reasonable permitting process nuclear would be the way to go. Of course this is only if you truly believe CO2 is going to lead to catastrophic climate change.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

Aggressively shutter coal like Germany is doing and replace it with wind/solar/storage. The next 10 years will see an absurd build-out of wind/solar/storage, but that doesn't mean we're gonna scrap the gap plants that were just built. They'll be around for decades to top off storage and perhaps act as peak supply in a very few fringe locations.

Existing nuclear can still operate where it's vital, but nothing new will be built in the medium term. Even places like China/India have already or will certainly soon shift entirely off new nuclear. Then once fossil interests are dead, we can get back to focusing on getting fusion(or small thorium or whatever) working.

We're going to have a massive oversupply of electricity for the next 10 years even with the tidal wave of EVs because we're stupid humans. Existing fossil interests are desperately adding capacity to get in under the wire and at the same time cheap renewables/storage are flooding into the market.

 

[jerry33]

There is no way you could completely replace fossil fuels with just wind and solar within 5 years.

True, but I didn't say that, or anything like it. What I said was that energy providers used to plan new installations at least a dozen years out because it would take that long to put in NG. With wind and solar it takes only a fraction of that time so they can better implement new production as needed and make it better suited to the changes as well. I used to be a nuclear fan too, but the water heating that nuclear requires is a problem.

 

[mspohr]

More on "how to pay for it"

Just 10% of fossil fuel subsidy cash 'could pay for green transition'

Just 10% of fossil fuel subsidy cash 'could pay for green transition'

Switching just some of the huge subsidies supporting fossil fuels to renewables would unleash a runaway clean energy revolution, according to a new report, significantly cutting the carbon emissions that are driving the climate crisis.

Coal, oil and gas get more than $370bn (£305bn) a year in support, compared with $100bn for renewables, the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) report found. Just 10-30% of the fossil fuel subsidies would pay for a global transition to clean energy, the IISD said.

 

[mspohr]

How The Clean Energy Transition Could Save More Than It Costs

The cost of transitioning the United States to clean energy may be offset or surpassed by the savings of not having to buy fossil fuels, according to a scholar of energy management systems.

That calculation does not including the savings from avoided pollution and climate damages, said James Williams of the University of San Francisco.

Late last year, Xcel Energy committed to 100 percent renewable electricity by 2050. Jonathan Adelman, the eight-state utility’s vice president of strategic planning, told Greentech Media that the incremental cost of renewable energy generation is now less than the embedded cost of existing fossil fuels.

 

[SageBrush]

Late last year, Xcel Energy committed to 100 percent renewable electricity by 2050. Jonathan Adelman, the eight-state utility’s vice president of strategic planning, told Greentech Media that the incremental cost of renewable energy generation is now less than the embedded cost of existing fossil fuels.

This has come up with regards to Tri-state, a large wholesaler to rural co-ops in the southwest that is coal based after Amory Lovin's institute showed it to be so for Tri-state (TS). TS was unimpressed, and they ignored the advice. As I understand things the basic problem is that TS has massive loans that are secured by their coal plants. If they shutter the coal plants, the loans are in default.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

This has come up with regards to Tri-state, a large wholesaler to rural co-ops in the southwest that is coal based after Amory Lovin's institute showed it to be so for Tri-state (TS). TS was unimpressed, and they ignored the advice. As I understand things the basic problem is that TS has massive loans that are secured by their coal plants. If they shutter the coal plants, the loans are in default.

Related:
La Plata Electric concerned Tri-State debt will lead to higher rates

 

[mspohr]

This has come up with regards to Tri-state, a large wholesaler to rural co-ops in the southwest that is coal based after Amory Lovin's institute showed it to be so for Tri-state (TS). TS was unimpressed, and they ignored the advice. As I understand things the basic problem is that TS has massive loans that are secured by their coal plants. If they shutter the coal plants, the loans are in default.

All fossil fuel assets are at risk of stranding. Power companies will continue to operate inefficient fossil plants since they can charge customers the cost plus their guaranteed profit.

 

[SageBrush]

All fossil fuel assets are at risk of stranding. Power companies will continue to operate inefficient fossil plants since they can charge customers the cost plus their guaranteed profit.

Stranded yes, but TS is in a worse situation because of debt. These are not new plants so I presume that TS used them as collateral for more debt.

Dumb move. I anticipate BK

 

[TheTalkingMule]

Stranded yes, but TS is in a worse situation because of debt. These are not new plants so I presume that TS used them as collateral for more debt.

Dumb move. I anticipate BK

Guess what......all utilities are probably like this.

Once solar passed 4% of total production in Germany, all three major utilities instantly went bankrupt. Their entire profit scheme hinged on making hay at peak hours and solar cratered all that peak demand.

If we didn't have so much corruption and corporate socialism that's what would be happening here. Funny to see everyone flocking to utilities today as a safe haven. NOT a good idea.

Anywho... All German utilities are now out of bankruptcy(partially bailed out) and have reformed into grid services companies, what are utility's job should be anyway.

 

[SageBrush]

Guess what......all utilities are probably like this.
Once solar passed 4% of total production in Germany, all three major utilities instantly went bankrupt. Their entire profit scheme hinged on making hay at peak hours and solar cratered all that peak demand.

I doubt it.

Like other highly competitive and mature industries, utilities spend the first 95% or so of revenue to cover fixed costs and the last 5% of revenue is profit. When revenue drops they downsize to reduce fixed costs ... except when they cannot. Then they enter BK.

I cannot remember numbers for TS but a large fraction of their fixed costs are to service debt.

 

[rays427]

More on "how to pay for it"

Just 10% of fossil fuel subsidy cash 'could pay for green transition'

Just 10% of fossil fuel subsidy cash 'could pay for green transition'

Switching just some of the huge subsidies supporting fossil fuels to renewables would unleash a runaway clean energy revolution, according to a new report, significantly cutting the carbon emissions that are driving the climate crisis.

Coal, oil and gas get more than $370bn (£305bn) a year in support, compared with $100bn for renewables, the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) report found. Just 10-30% of the fossil fuel subsidies would pay for a global transition to clean energy, the IISD said.

What are these fossil fuel subsidies you keep talking about? I assume you are talking about the same tax breaks every other industry gets. If so, and you basically tax the oil companies more, who do you think will pay these higher taxes. The oil companies in general make less profit than most other industries so they will just pass on the higher taxes to their customers. Based on the total energy used in the US the renewables get much larger subsidies per unit of energy produced.

 

[rays427]

Aggressively shutter coal like Germany is doing and replace it with wind/solar/storage. The next 10 years will see an absurd build-out of wind/solar/storage, but that doesn't mean we're gonna scrap the gap plants that were just built. They'll be around for decades to top off storage and perhaps act as peak supply in a very few fringe locations.

Existing nuclear can still operate where it's vital, but nothing new will be built in the medium term. Even places like China/India have already or will certainly soon shift entirely off new nuclear. Then once fossil interests are dead, we can get back to focusing on getting fusion(or small thorium or whatever) working.

We're going to have a massive oversupply of electricity for the next 10 years even with the tidal wave of EVs because we're stupid humans. Existing fossil interests are desperately adding capacity to get in under the wire and at the same time cheap renewables/storage are flooding into the market.

Germany started their aggressive move to renewables in 2011. They have replaced quite a bit of coal use for power generation but as of 2018 their total energy use ( including transportation) was 34.3% oil, 23.7%, 21.3% coal and 20.7% renewables and nuclear. So they still have a long way to go especially since they are going to shut down their nuclear.

 

[SageBrush]

If so, and you basically tax the oil companies more, who do you think will pay these higher taxes.

The people who consume oil.

As it should be.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

Germany started their aggressive move to renewables in 2011. They have replaced quite a bit of coal use for power generation but as of 2018 their total energy use ( including transportation) was 34.3% oil, 23.7%, 21.3% coal and 20.7% renewables and nuclear. So they still have a long way to go especially since they are going to shut down their nuclear.

Certainly have a long way to go, but they've been holding back on purpose for about 3 years now waiting on storage technology to scale(and protecting legacy profit centers). From 2008 to 2014 they jump from <1% of electricity from solar to something like 6%, that's absurd progress and really shows what can be done if anyone actually puts real effort behind this.

% of electricity consumption by year:
2009 1.13%
2010 1.90%
2011 3.23%
2012 4.35%
2013 5.13% <-- RWE becomes walking dead
2014 6.08%
2015 6.5%
2016 6.4%
2017 6.6%

Today they're around 8%. In cloudy ass industrial Germany(1/4 the size and far shittier Sun than the US).

 

[SageBrush]

Certainly have a long way to go, but they've been holding back on purpose for about 3 years now waiting on storage technology to scale

I don't know a lot about Germany. Why is wind not emphasized ? Perhaps off-shore will be a new frontier.