Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Keystone pipeline dealt a big blow

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • BroncoBeavis
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroncoBeavis
    replied
    Originally posted by Fedaykin View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fedaykin
    replied
    Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroncoBeavis
    replied
    Originally posted by Fedaykin View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • cutthemdown
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fedaykin
    replied
    Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fedaykin
    replied
    Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Rohirrim
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Rohirrim
    replied
    Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • BroncoBeavis
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rohirrim
    replied
    Originally posted by Missouribronc View Post
    Specifics please?

    How is this viably done? Again, specifics. That means I want to know how the infrastructure will be paid for and how it will be installed.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/markrogo...ty-industries/

    Leave a comment:


  • BroncoBeavis
    replied
    Originally posted by Fedaykin View Post
    LMAO what is being proposed that is merely at the theoretical stage? The only thing that comes to mind as qualifying as "theoretical" is a fusion power infrastructure.
    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


    Who said anything about a forced or central planning driven and or required conversion? Once again: you need a lot of reading comprehension work.
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fedaykin
    replied
    Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
    Not theoretical SciFi infrastructure. Some always want to put that particular cart before that horse.

    Edison and Tesla had to do their thing before there was an electrical infrastructure to build out. Arpanet had to evolve in relative obscurity for decades before it became something worth building out into the internet.

    LMAO what is being proposed that is merely at the theoretical stage? The only thing that comes to mind as qualifying as "theoretical" is a fusion power infrastructure.

    And at no point did a central planner ever say to himself "We need to change how this macroeconomic system works" and proceed to both invent and widely implement a realistic solution.

    Nobody said, hey let's make a law that makes transporting horses illegal, so then blacksmiths will turn into inventors and come up with something better. Innovation was already well under way before central authorities knew much of anything about it.

    Progress is far more evolutionary than revolutionary. Which is why "progressives" more often than not shoot themselves in the foot passing up incremental improvements waiting for that fictional silver dream bullet they always swear is just around the corner.
    Who said anything about a forced or central planning driven and or required conversion? Once again: you need a lot of reading comprehension work.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroncoBeavis
    replied
    Originally posted by alkemical View Post
    That doesn't address my points, now does it?
    What is your point exactly. China's improving faster than we are?

    Well yes. But they have many light years to go. And a political structure that will either have to be eventually thrown aside, or will cause the whole thing to collapse.

    Just makes me remember back to the 80's when everyone in the world thought Japan was going to perpetually eat our lunch and own the world. Then they started having some of the problems that come with mature/post industrialization. They leaned heavy on the command and control (though nothing on the order of China) and they essentially fell off the world growth map. Nobody talks about them overtaking anyone economically anymore.

    Command and control can look halfway efficient when you're talking logarithmic advantages in wages. Once those wages are forced to be more competitive, though, China will either have to throw off the central planner's shackles, or find themselves completely unable to compete. It simply becomes too expensive to waste high wages on ill-conceived authoritarian pet projects.

    <iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/V3XfpYxHKCo?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

    Leave a comment:


  • alkemical
    replied
    Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
    We've got our problems. But beyond the press releases and gilded facade, China has few answers.

    http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2013/...oment-arrived/

    China's authority envyists love to highlight its press-minted technological gimmicks like subsidized solar panels or 100 experimental 3d printing facilities. But in a country that's still firing up old-fashioned coal powerplants on a weekly basis, it's a little premature to declare what they're doing the vision of our energy future.
    That doesn't address my points, now does it?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X