Keystone pipeline dealt a big blow

[BroncoBeavis]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markrogo...ty-industries/

Batteries add nothing but overhead to the power grid. They can store excess (inefficiently) or make electricity portable. But they add zero in terms of net power generation.

They have to be filled with something. And by far the most economically viable thing to fill them with at this point is fossil-fuel-derived juice.

[Rohirrim]

Batteries add nothing but overhead to the power grid. They can store excess (inefficiently) or make electricity portable. But they add zero in terms of net power generation.

They have to be filled with something. And by far the most economically viable thing to fill them with at this point is fossil-fuel-derived juice.

How much of that is pumped into the atmosphere as a gas?

[Rohirrim]

Forbes energy analyst James Conca, commenting on the second pipeline spill in a week in 2013 involving Canadian crude oil, wrote, "It's crazy to think the Keystone XL pipeline won't leak." That is a terrible risk to bear for a pipeline that many experts believe will simply pump a lot of Canadian crude oil over United States soil in order to be processed and sold internationally and which will actually increase the domestic price of oil in America, according to a study by Cornell University and a report by Bloomberg news. Keystone denies that the oil will end up being exported -- despite many reports that its refined product will.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/26/opinio...html?hpt=hp_t4

[Fedaykin]

Renewable power generation has to be competitive to be a true alternative. Generation costs of 3-4x conventional coal can't really be considered a solution to anything.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/23/bu...ergy.html?_r=0

Actually, solar power generation is near parity with coal, not 3-4x.

"In the United States, the average price for a utility-scale PV project has dropped from about $0.21 per kilowatt-hour in 2010 to $0.11 per kilowatt-hour at the end of 2013. According to the Energy Information Administration, the average U.S. electricity price is about $0.12 per kilowatt-hour."

http://energy.gov/articles/us-utilit...mpetition-goal

Doesn't mean it's applicable everywhere, but in places that are well suited it's now economically and technologically feasible.

Denying new crude oil distribution improvements in the name of some theoretical science-fiction alternative that doesn't exist yet is pretty much exactly that.

Even the supporters agree this pipeline won't actually reduce gas prices or improve anything (other than the backers bank account balance). So, why build something that will be a huge environmental problem if it won't even benefit us?

[Fedaykin]

Batteries add nothing but overhead to the power grid. They can store excess (inefficiently) or make electricity portable. But they add zero in terms of net power generation.

LI-ION batteries are actually very efficient at storing power (80-90% over a charge-discharge cycle on averfage).

As I've pointed out before, they a vastly more efficient than other forms of energy storage such as Hydrogen.

They have to be filled with something. And by far the most economically viable thing to fill them with at this point is fossil-fuel-derived juice.

See my previous post. It's only a matter of time before solar cost/Wh is substantially lower than fossil fuel cost/Wh. Wind, geothermal and other renewables are already cheaper.

[cutthemdown]

Obama played all sides on Keystone. He went around championing the souther section, saying he supports jobs, while killing the northern section saying he loves the environment. Wow what a **** job of big govt BS.

[BroncoBeavis]

Actually, solar power generation is near parity with coal, not 3-4x.

"In the United States, the average price for a utility-scale PV project has dropped from about $0.21 per kilowatt-hour in 2010 to $0.11 per kilowatt-hour at the end of 2013. According to the Energy Information Administration, the average U.S. electricity price is about $0.12 per kilowatt-hour."

http://energy.gov/articles/us-utilit...mpetition-goal

Doesn't mean it's applicable everywhere, but in places that are well suited it's now economically and technologically feasible.

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/...generation.cfm

Look at Table 2. Yes there are some places where you can almost make a solar plant close to feasible (though likely still heavily subsidized)

But as a national (aka significant) solution, Solar is beyond unrealistic.

Even the supporters agree this pipeline won't actually reduce gas prices or improve anything (other than the backers bank account balance). So, why build something that will be a huge environmental problem if it won't even benefit us?

It will provide jobs, move oil more efficiently and predictably, and prevent deaths. Oh, and the whole 'a private company got approval from every state along the route, so what business is it of the Federal Government's in the first place?' thing.

But I guess some people believe that every market decision should first have to go through at least one round of kiss the emperor's ring before being seriously considered.

[Fedaykin]

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/...generation.cfm

Look at Table 2. Yes there are some places where you can almost make a solar plant close to feasible (though likely still heavily subsidized)

But as a national (aka significant) solution, Solar is beyond unrealistic.

That's a forecast that was developed three+ years ago, and has already been shown wrong (see the detail of my link).

It will provide jobs, move oil more efficiently and predictably, and prevent deaths. Oh, and the whole 'a private company got approval from every state along the route, so what business is it of the Federal Government's in the first place?' thing.

Also been debunked in this threat. Get caught up.

But I guess some people believe that every market decision should first have to go through at least one round of kiss the emperor's ring before being seriously considered.

It's not just a market decision. Get that through your thick skull.

[BroncoBeavis]

That's a forecast that was developed three+ years ago, and has already been shown wrong (see the detail of my link).

Looks like it was dated January of last year. And the important part (especially for PV) is the jump from Table 1 to Table 2. This is where they take locate-ability into account. You can cobble together some fake comparison looking at plain production cost for solar in the best possible location and compare it to retail delivered electricity prices (which are always higher for obvious reasons) all day long. The problem is that a large majority of energy usage in this country takes place where solar isn't very feasible. Colder climates use far more energy and at the same time (and for the same basic reasons) have virtually zero competitive solar potential.

Also been debunked in this threat. Get caught up.

I think it's pretty well established that pipelines lead to less transport energy waste, fewer spills, and fewer casualties. If that's been debunked, I haven't seen how. Just curious again, what was the upside to to training that oil all over everywhere? Other than symbolism I mean?

It's not just a market decision. Get that through your thick skull.

To some people, nothing ever is.

[BroncoBeavis]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-0...y-program.html

Adding renewable-energy plants in Germany doesn’t cut Europe’s emissions because they’re released elsewhere, the Commission for Research and Innovation said in a report handed to Chancellor Angela Merkel today. The uncapped aid provided by the system known as EEG -- about 23 billion euros ($31 billion) last year -- doesn’t encourage new technologies, it said.

“The EEG isn’t a cost-efficient instrument for climate protection nor does it have a measurable impact on innovation,” the commission said in the report. “That’s why there is no basis for the continuation of the EEG.”

The criticism puts pressure on the government as it studies the EEG, which was introduced 14 years ago and has helped raise the share of renewables to about 25 percent of power generation from 7 percent in 2000. Merkel has said she’ll prioritize a transformation of the energy industry in her third term after rising costs for wind and solar farms helped make consumer power bills the highest in the European Union after Denmark.