+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 39
Latest: Felipe_solarmining_chile
New This Month: 1
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 7054
Total Topics: 210
Most Online Today: 2
Most Online Ever: 48
(June 03, 2014, 03:09:30 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 2
Total: 2

Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 3 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.
Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

Attach:
(Clear Attachment)
(more attachments)
Allowed file types: doc, gif, jpg, jpeg, mpg, pdf, png, txt, zip, rar, csv, xls, xlsx, docx
Restrictions: 4 per post, maximum total size 1024KB, maximum individual size 512KB
Verification:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: May 25, 2017, 10:43:46 pm »

Is the Fossil Fuel Industry Actually Dying?


May 23, 2017

Thom talks about a piece speculating on the imminent death of the fossil fuel industry. It could happen sooner than we think! 
 
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: May 25, 2017, 06:35:05 pm »

Joshua D. Rhodes, Ph.D. is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow in The Webber Energy Group and the Energy Institute at the University of Texas at Austin. His current research is in the area of smart grid and the bulk electricity system, including spatial system-level applications and impacts of energy efficiency, resource planning, distributed generation, and storage. He is also interested in policy.

Are Solar and Wind Really Killing Coal, Nuclear and Grid Reliability? 

SNIPPET:


May 25, 2017

By Joshua D. Rhodes, Michael E. Webber, Thomas Deetjen and Todd Davidson

U.S. Secretary of Energy Rick Perry in April requested a study to assess the effect of renewable energy policies on nuclear and coal-fired power plants.

Some energy analysts responded with confusion, as the subject has been extensively studied by grid operators and the Department of Energy’s own national labs. Others were more critical, saying the intent of the review is to favor the use of nuclear and coal over renewable sources.

So, are wind and solar killing coal and nuclear? Yes   ;D , but not by themselves and not for the reasons most people think. Are wind and solar killing grid reliability? No, not where the grid’s technology and regulations have been modernized. In those places, overall grid operation has improved, not worsened.

To understand why, we need to trace the path of electrons from the wall socket back to power generators and the markets and policies that dictate that flow. As energy scholars based in Texas — the national leader in wind — we’ve seen these dynamics play out over the past decade, including when Perry was governor.

Wrong Question 


There has been a lot of ink spilled on why coal is in trouble. A quick recap: Natural gas is plentiful and cheap. Our coal fleet is old and depreciated. Energy use in the U.S. has flatlined, so there’s less financial incentive to build big new power plants.

Part of Perry’s review  ;) is aimed at establishing how wind and solar, which are variable sources of power, are affecting so-called baseload sources — the power plants that provide the steady flow of electricity needed to meet the minimum demand.

Posing the question whether wind and solar are killing baseload generators, including coal plants, reveals an antiquated mindset about power markets that hasn’t been relevant in many places for at least a decade. It would be similar to asking in the late 1990s whether email was killing fax machines and snail mail. The answer would have been an unequivocal “yes” followed by cheers of “hallelujah” and “it’s about time” because both had bumped into the limits of their utility. How quickly 1990s consumers leaped to something faster, less impactful and cheaper than the older approach was a sign that they were ready for it.

Something similar is happening in today’s power markets, as customers again choose faster, less impactful, cheaper options — namely wind, solar and natural gas plants that quickly boost or cut their output — as opposed to clinging to the outdated, lumbering options developed decades before. Even the Department of Energy’s own analysis states that “many of the old paradigms that govern the (electricity) sector are also evolving.”

Wind and solar are making older generators less viable because their low, stable prices and emissions-free operation are desirable. And they aren’t hurting grid reliability the way critics had assumed because other innovations have happened simultaneously.


Texas Pioneer

Let’s use the case study of Texas to illustrate. Since Texas has its own grid, known as the Electricity Reliability Council of Texas or ERCOT, and has installed more wind capacity than the next three wind-leading states combined, the Texas experience shows what variable renewables like wind power do to the grid.

In competitive markets like ERCOT, companies that run power plants place bids into an auction to provide electricity at a certain time for a certain price. A bid stack is jargon for “a stack of bids” — or the collection of all these bids lined up in order by price — in auction-based markets (such as Texas).

Markets use bid stacks to make sure that the lowest-cost power plants are dispatched first and the most expensive power plants are dispatched last. This market-based system is designed to deliver the lowest-cost electricity to consumers while also keeping power plant owners from operating at a loss. Throughout the day, the market price for electricity (in $/MWh) changes as demand changes.

Full EYE OPENING article (though Palloy's eyes will continue to be tightly shut  :P) with irrefutable animated charts and hard data proving that Renewables make the Grid MORE RELIABLE , not less:

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2017/05/are-solar-and-wind-really-killing-coal-nuclear-and-grid-reliability.html


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: May 23, 2017, 08:29:08 pm »



22 May 2017 | Sören Amelang, Benjamin Wehrmann, Julian Wettengel   

Germany & China appeal to US on climate / Swiss vote for Energiewende


Germany, China call on US to remain in Paris Agreement

Germany and China reiterated their calls on the US administration to commit to international climate protection efforts and stay in the Paris Agreement at a climate conference in Berlin. Germany is currently trying “on all levels” to persuade the US administration to stay in the agreement, said environment minister Barbara Hendricks at a press conference ahead of the 8th Petersberg Climate Dialogue, held 22 – 23 May in Berlin. China's Special Representative on Climate Change Xie Zhenhua said that “no country, no people” could stop the global trend towards climate protection.
The Petersberg Climate Dialogue gives countries the opportunity to informally exchange experiences on international climate policy.

Follow the public segments of the Petersberg Climate Dialogue via livestream here and find the programme in English here.


G20 must promote climate protection

G20 countries must promote climate protection and the implementation of the Paris Agreement, said the Federation of German Industries (BDI), Germanwatch and Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC) in a joint press release ahead of the 8th Petersberg Climate Dialogue. The meeting in Berlin today and tomorrow should provide the necessary tailwind for the G20 summit in Hamburg in July, they said. BDI deputy managing director Holger Lösch called on G20 governments to lay the groundwork for a CO₂ price at the Hamburg summit.

Swiss give green light for renewables and nuclear phase-out

A clear majority of voters in Switzerland have opted for a new energy law that aims to promote renewable energy, bans construction of new nuclear plants and fosters greater energy efficiency, Urs Geiser writes on swissinfo.ch. About 58 percent of Swiss voters in a referendum on Sunday backed the government’s Energy Strategy 2050 programme, which had been debated for six years, Geiser writes. Swiss energy Minister Doris Leuthard said the vote opened “a new chapter in Switzerland’s energy policy,” but there was “still a lot of work to do.”

Read the article in English here.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: May 19, 2017, 03:20:13 pm »

Renewable Energy Is Unstoppable, Declares Financial Times  :o  ;D

May 19th, 2017 by Steve Hanley

SNIPPET:

With more then 2.2 million readers a day, the Financial Times is the newspaper of record for economists, business leaders, and government policy makers worldwide. Think Progress claims FT, as it is known to its readers, is the “most important business read” and “the most credible publication in reporting financial and economic issues” for global professional investors, business leaders, and policy makers according to surveys.

On May 18, its lead story was entitled: The Big Green Bang: How Renewable Energy Became Unstoppable. It begins with a question, one that should leave fossil fuel industry leaders feeling glum — “Is the 21st century the last one for fossil fuels?” Before we start rejoicing, keep in mind there are still 83 years left to go in this century and the fossil fuel industry intends to extract and sell every molecule of fossil fuels it can find before the end times for oil, natural gas, and coal arrive. By the time 2101 gets here, the earth may have been unalterably changed to the point where human existence as we know it is no longer possible.

Bill McKibben, in his insightful book, Oil And Honey, makes the case clearly. The environment can withstand perhaps another 565 gigatons of carbon emissions before the environment tips over into unsustainability. After that, most of the species presently alive will simply disappear, the oceans will rise by an average of 12 feet, and global temperatures will increase to the point where traditional agriculture becomes impossible. Our children’s children may not roast to death but they very well might die of starvation.

McKibben then drops the other shoe. The world’s fossil fuel companies have reserves which, if consumed, will release 2,795 gigatons of carbon emissions into the world’s already overloaded ecosystem — five times more than the environment can possibly absorb. If the fossil fuel companies dropped nuclear bombs on society, they would be vilified as monsters. But 2,795 gigatons worth of carbon may be worse than a nuclear attack. Radiation begins to abate after a few hundred years. It may be a million years of more the earth is able to recover from the fossil fuel bomb the Koch Brothers and their ilk have in mind.



https://cleantechnica.com/2017/05/19/renewable-energy-unstoppable-declares-financial-times/


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: May 09, 2017, 11:19:10 pm »



Top Five Reasons Fossil Fuel Companies Should Diversify into Renewables Now
 
And why one expert believes they need to step up the pace. 

May 8, 2017

By Jennifer Runyon 
Chief Editor

SNIPPET:

2. The transition to renewables is happening faster than expected.

Lovins pointed out the dramatic fall in renewable energy prices for electricity. Dong energy’s recent bid for offshore wind at the market price for electricity is just one of many examples he gave.

“The EU wind power price in 8-9 months last year fell by 43 percent,” he said.

Just as the transition from horse and buggies to automobiles took just over a decade (In only 13 years, the Easter Day parade in New York City went from one dominated by horses and buggies to one in which there we no horses of any kind to be seen), the transition to renewable energy could be much swifter than companies realize.  Lovins predicted that there will be more EVs on the road than internal combustion engines in 10 years.
 



http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2017/05/top-five-reasons-fossil-fuel-companies-should-diversify-into-renewables-now.html
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: May 03, 2017, 04:49:31 pm »

California legislative leaders call for 100 percent renewable energy   
 

Greg Alvarez 
May 3, 2017
 
Yesterday, the leader of the California Senate, Kevin de Leon, proposed a bill that would transition California to 100 percent renewable retail electricity.

That would improve upon the state’s existing renewable energy standard, which calls for 50 percent renewables by 2030. Under the new legislation the state would hit that target five years early, and would achieve its 100 percent renewable goal by 2045.

I realized that the investor-owned utilities are going to hit 50 percent by the early-to-mid 2020s without breaking a sweat ,” de Leon said. “So, we should accelerate this process and demonstrate to the entire world that we can actually generate 100 percent of our electricity with clean energy and put people to work.” 

Danielle Osborn Mills, Director of AWEA’s California Caucus, praised the move:

“The wind industry stands ready to create jobs and provide affordable, reliable, clean energy to Californians. Wind energy is already a no-regrets alternative to fossil fuels, and it is a key component of a diverse, balanced, low-carbon grid. Accelerating our renewable energy targets to get to 50% renewables by 2026 can help Californians capture significant savings from the declining federal tax incentives for renewable energy, and will promote significant additional direct investment in California.

“This bill isn’t just about a long-term vision, it is about near-term action.  We cannot afford to delay.  SB 100 will ensure continued economic growth, improved environmental quality for all, and resilience in the face of uncertainty.” 

http://www.aweablog.org/california-legislative-leaders-call-100-percent-renewable-energy/

Agelbert NOTE: Trump and his fossil fuel based wrecking crew will, of course, try to sabotage these CommonFuckingSense efforts in California. My advice to them and all their buddies from the Kochtopus is to bring a sandwich.
We California Kitties understand the Fossil Fuel Industry MO in general and that of the Koch Brothers in particular. They've been at it for many years (see 2011 videos below). But NOW, at least in OUR state, it's OVER for them and their hired liars and crooks!

The Koch Brothers & Their Amazing Climate Change Denial Machine


Uploaded on Jun 13, 2011
A short animation detailing the effort of billionaires oil barons Charles & David Koch to undermine belief in climate change and prevent legislation that threatens their profits. By pouring money into bogus scientific studies and funding third parties such as Think Tanks and Front Groups (posing as everything from Seniors groups to Women's groups) the public is led to believe a genuine scientific debate is raging. In truth, as one climate denier candidly admits, those doubting the science are just a small, if brilliantly coordinated, minority.

The piece was made by Australian filmmaker Taki Oldham and incorporates footage from his 55 min. documentary The Billionaires' Tea Party (2011).
Attack of the Kochtopus! (Original)
https://youtu.be/mbXPP7WwZ74
Published on Mar 2, 2011
See more at http://www.zinasaunders.com






Posted by: AGelbert
« on: May 02, 2017, 08:14:28 pm »

 

There are now more than 9.4 million people working in the renewable energy sector  

ast updated on May 2nd, 2017  at 8:31 pm by Mihai Andrei

According to a new report released by an environment and energy consultancy, 9.4 million people globally work in renewable energy, more than at any other point in history.

Image via Pexels.

The report was released by Allen and York, and it states that 2.8 million people work in solar PV, 1.6 million in liquid biofuels, and 1 million in wind, reflecting a “5% increase in 2015 and confirms the strength of this relatively new industry.”

Despite Trump’s best efforts, the US is still one of the leaders in renewable energy, alongside China, Brazil, India, Japan, and Germany. This relatively new industry has been more effective in creating jobs than coal or oil in the United States, and previous research has suggested that in terms of job generation, the overall potential of the renewable energy sector is much higher than that of the fossil fuel industry. This is easily visible in existing figures, as more and more Americans work in and support renewables. The report states:

Quote
“Exciting developments across US solar and wind has seen a 6% increase in renewable energy employment in 2016, reaching a total of 769,000 people working across the industry. According to figures published by the US Department of Energy (US DOE), the solar workforce increased by 25% in 2016, while wind employment increased by 32%.Driven by plummeting costs and growing consumer appetite, the renewable energy sector in the US looks set to thrive, despite their climate-sceptic President.”

This is not limited to the US or a specific area of the world. In Morocco, for instance, the market could soon yield over half a million new jobs, mostly in the solar industry (something which Morocco is already famous for). Despite highly questionable leadership, one in five Australian homes use solar energy, China has already cemented their dominance in terms of renewable energy generation, and Europe as a whole is also taking strides in the right direction, though with a slightly different twist. Residential solar energy is growing in popularity, especially in Germany, where ambitious tariffs facilitated great development in rooftop solar. Despite a natural trend, the role of good governance is extremely important, in more than one way.

Interestingly, the report also underscores the significance of education for the future of renewables. As more and more jobs emerge and diversify, having well-educated, qualified professionals is vital. Referring to the UK specifically, the report states:

Quote
“Digital skills should be included in the government’s future definition of basic skills and a comprehensive programme of upskilling developed in partnership with industry and training providers to ensure that the UK workforce at all levels” the report states. “A much greater, targeted focus is needed on promoting STEM subjects and engineering careers to under-represented groups (including women, people from BAME communities and those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds) to fully unlock the talent potential in the UK.”

No matter how you look at it, the future appears bright for renewable jobs. Renewable energy technologies are getting cheaper, installations are growing almost exponentially year after year. For such a new industry, the results are indeed stunning. Hopefully, the world will embrace it instead of clinging to the past.


http://www.zmescience.com/ecology/renewable-energy-ecology/renewable-energy-jobs-02052017/
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: May 01, 2017, 06:09:21 pm »



Listen Up: Westinghouse Nuclear Energy Killed by Gas, Solar and Wind 
   

May 1, 2017

By The Energy Show on Renewable Energy World 

Video killed the radio star — just as natural gas, wind and solar are slowly but surely killing the nuclear power industry (we’re already saying good bye to coal). Unfortunately, the venerable Westinghouse Electric Company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on March 29, 2017, dragged down by huge losses in their nuclear power plant construction business. But the story about the demise of Westinghouse is more nuanced, read on to find out how and why solar killed nuclear.

George Westinghouse founded the Westinghouse Electric Corporation in 1886. He teamed up with Nikola Tesla to develop and promote AC power, instead of the DC power infrastructure preferred by Thomas Edison. By using transformers to step up voltages for long distance power distribution and then step down voltages again for home use, the economics of AC power turned out to be much more favorable than DC power (the geeky reason is explained by Ohm’s Law and conductor sizes). To this day the world’s electrical system is still almost exclusively based on AC power. Over a 100-year period the Westinghouse Electric Corporation expanded into appliances, locomotives, entertainment — and even solar power (for many years Westinghouse held the record for solar cell efficiency).

Fast forward to the 1990s when the Westinghouse Electric Corporation came to the conclusion that their broadcasting subsidiary — the Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS) — had the potential to be more profitable than their manufacturing businesses. So they sold off all of their manufacturing operations, renamed the parent company as CBS, and licensed the Westinghouse name to leading companies in related market segments. Their nuclear business, which was named the Westinghouse Electric Company, eventually ended up as a subsidiary of Toshiba.

Toshiba expected to benefit from a renaissance in nuclear power, leveraging less expensive reactor designs and the need for carbon-free electricity. But three developments prevented this nuclear renaissance. First, the actual construction of these new reactor designs ended up being very expensive and time consuming. Second, nuclear power is still plagued by safety (Fukushima), nuclear waste and proliferation issues. And the final nail in the nuclear coffin is economic: electric power plants fueled by natural gas, solar and wind are much less expensive to build and operate, and can be constructed in several years — as opposed to several decades for a new nuclear plant. For more about the fate of the nuclear power industry and how solar killed nuclear energy, Listen Up to the Energy Show on Renewable Energy World.

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2017/05/listen-up-westinghouse-nuclear-energy-killed-by-gas-solar-and-wind.html

Stupid me thought Nukes were DOA in Texas, with all the alternative energy that's already online, but apparently they are not:

Several energy companies are planning to build nuclear power plants to meet electricity demand in a way that is cost effective and protects air quality. In Texas, Exelon, Luminant and NRG Energy have filed license applications with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build at least five reactors in Victoria County, Glen Rose and Matagorda County. Plans for expansion in Matagorda were put on hold after the March 2011 earthquake in Japan caused a nuclear disaster at the Fukushima Nuclear Power plant, 155 miles north of Tokyo. Amarillo Power/UniStar is planning to build one additional reactor near Amarillo, but plans there have also hit delays. Upon completion, the plants could provide enough electricity to serve 6.8 million homes annually.

https://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/tag/nuclear-energy-in-texas/


[/color]

I sure am sorry to see this happening. I don't expect Rick Perry to do anything to stop it.

Eddie,
Yes, the nuke pukes are busy doing what they do in Texas. Yes, the nuclear waste problem is the gift that keeps giving for those who want to pollute poor neighborhoods and make the public pay for it based on "national security". This has been their M.O. for over half a century. None of that nuclear power stuff was EVER cost effective at producing energy, never mind the radionuclide pollution, Uranium mine pollution (still mostly NOT addressed because the hundreds of abandoned mines are in Native American lands) and other "externalized" costs we-the-people are STUCK with for about 100,000 years, more or less.   

It's over for them, Eddie. You will have die hard bastards trying to make wind and solar "illegal" or "too polluting" LOL! in order to keep nuclear white elephants alive. But I'm confident that Renewable Energy has a strange bedfellow ally here called the frackers. The frackers have ZERO intention of allowing the nuclear power people to make a comeback. Consequently, it's all out rug pulling time for nuclear power.

Here's the deal, Eddie. There is only ONE reason nuclear power reactors currently get subsidized over and over and over despite them not making any sense economically: Nuclear Submarines and nuclear weapons! That's right. As strange as it sounds, the M.I.C. has a welfare program for nuclear submarine commanders and Universities that teach nuclear physics.

Yep, the university nuclear physics studies are funded by we-the-people BECAUSE TPTB want to maintain a current level of people (when the old nuke puke farts retire) that understand nuclear physics so that our subs and carriers and BOMBS are kept up to date.

Recently, that came out in England. The ONLY reason they are trying to build the Hinkley nuclear power white elephant (which FORCES the English to pay electricity rates for the next FORTY YEARS ABOVE, FAR ABOVE!, what it NOW costs to get juice from wind and solar) is because they want JOBS for their submarine crews and a REASON for people to study to make nuclear bombs and other nuclear fun and games stuff. Scotland has been trying to give England the finger on nukes for over a decade (unsuccessfully - England won't pull their submarine bases out). So Texas is sort of in the same bind that Scotland is.

Texans are creative. Especially when they have to fossil fuelers helping them be creative, if ya know what I mean.    They'll figure something out that makes economic sense eventually. For now, if your utility tries to sweet talk you into the same crapola they are doing in Georgia (the utility building the nukes that apparently will never open CAN, and DOES, charge CURRENT customers monthly fees for losses on the construction of the nukes WITHOUT ANY TIME LIMIT),  I suggest you politely remind them that for profit corporations are not supposed to stiff people for losses that their customers did not incur.  ;)

We are DONE with nukes in Vermont. I hope you Texans can soon stop those money pit disasters soon as well.

Moving right along , here's an article that pretty well covers the sorry ass political situation in this country. I think you and I can find common ground in this article:


Here’s Why We Shouldn’t Laugh at Donald Trump’s 100-Day Faceplant


Jon Schwarz

April 29 2017, 11:52 a.m.

https://theintercept.com/2017/04/29/heres-why-we-shouldnt-laugh-at-donald-trumps-100-day-faceplant/






 
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: May 01, 2017, 01:12:01 pm »



Listen Up: Westinghouse Nuclear Energy Killed by Gas, Solar and Wind 
   

May 1, 2017

By The Energy Show on Renewable Energy World 

Video killed the radio star — just as natural gas, wind and solar are slowly but surely killing the nuclear power industry (we’re already saying good bye to coal). Unfortunately, the venerable Westinghouse Electric Company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on March 29, 2017, dragged down by huge losses in their nuclear power plant construction business. But the story about the demise of Westinghouse is more nuanced, read on to find out how and why solar killed nuclear.

George Westinghouse founded the Westinghouse Electric Corporation in 1886. He teamed up with Nikola Tesla to develop and promote AC power, instead of the DC power infrastructure preferred by Thomas Edison. By using transformers to step up voltages for long distance power distribution and then step down voltages again for home use, the economics of AC power turned out to be much more favorable than DC power (the geeky reason is explained by Ohm’s Law and conductor sizes). To this day the world’s electrical system is still almost exclusively based on AC power. Over a 100-year period the Westinghouse Electric Corporation expanded into appliances, locomotives, entertainment — and even solar power (for many years Westinghouse held the record for solar cell efficiency).

Fast forward to the 1990s when the Westinghouse Electric Corporation came to the conclusion that their broadcasting subsidiary — the Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS) — had the potential to be more profitable than their manufacturing businesses. So they sold off all of their manufacturing operations, renamed the parent company as CBS, and licensed the Westinghouse name to leading companies in related market segments. Their nuclear business, which was named the Westinghouse Electric Company, eventually ended up as a subsidiary of Toshiba.

Toshiba expected to benefit from a renaissance in nuclear power, leveraging less expensive reactor designs and the need for carbon-free electricity. But three developments prevented this nuclear renaissance. First, the actual construction of these new reactor designs ended up being very expensive and time consuming. Second, nuclear power is still plagued by safety (Fukushima), nuclear waste and proliferation issues. And the final nail in the nuclear coffin is economic: electric power plants fueled by natural gas, solar and wind are much less expensive to build and operate, and can be constructed in several years — as opposed to several decades for a new nuclear plant. For more about the fate of the nuclear power industry and how solar killed nuclear energy, Listen Up to the Energy Show on Renewable Energy World.

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2017/05/listen-up-westinghouse-nuclear-energy-killed-by-gas-solar-and-wind.html
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: April 17, 2017, 05:14:04 pm »

Big Announcements on Renewable Energy

InsideClimate News April 17, 2017 | Rona Fried | Renewables & Efficiency

Thanks to continuing declines in solar and wind costs, the world added record amounts of renewable energy last year at the lowest prices ever , according to the United Nations.  55% of all new power came from renewables – one of the reasons emissions were flat in 2016 for the third year in a row.

Electricity from renewables rose 9% (139 gigawatts), while the cost to install all that dropped 23%.

Renewables now provide 11.3% of the world’s electricity, preventing 1.7 gigatons of carbon emissions a year.

“More for less” was the story of renewable energy in 2016. Global investment in renewables (excluding large hydro) fell by 23% to $241.6 billion, the lowest total since 2013, but there was record installation of renewable power capacity worldwide in 2016,” says the report.

Key Findings:

◾Investment in renewables was roughly double that of fossil fuels for the fifth consecutive year.

◾Costs to install solar PV, onshore wind and offshore wind were down 10%

◾Record investments in offshore wind, up 53% to $25.9 billion in Europe and China

◾Solar and wind prices reached record lows at power auctions – prices “that would have seemed inconceivably low only a few years ago.”


In 2017, about 85 gigawatts (GW) of solar will be added around the world, more than double that of 2014, and China is expected to add 30 GW of that. The US, China, Japan and India will dominate the market in 2017, with India overtaking Japan as the third-largest market, according to GTM Research.

For the first time, offshore wind will be built without any subsidies, as DONG Energy won an auction to build two offshore wind farms in Germany’s North Sea at super-low prices. The price to construct offshore wind farms is down 46% in the last five years – 22% in 2016 alone- reports Bloomberg.

China’s emissions WENT DOWN for the first time last year, dropping 1% even as the economy grew 6.7%, says the International Energy Agency.  The US had the biggest drop in emissions at 3%.

US Renewables

Thanks to energy efficiency and renewables, US carbon emissions are 14% lower than 2005 levels – we are back to 1992 levels.  ;D

Wind and solar are increasingly the lowest-cost resources getting connected to the grid, changing the investment calculus for utilities and dominating new capacity builds. Electricity demand nationwide continues to fall, even as millions more square feet of buildings are constructed. And in states across the country, distributed solar is decimating load growth,” says GTM Research.

56 GW of coal plants could close in the Midwest because the average cost of wind is $10/ megawatt-hour cheaper, according to Moody’s Investor Services.

San Diego slid past Los Angeles in 2016 as the most active solar market. Installations rose 60% to 303 megawatts (MW) – enough to power 76,000 homes. LA is in second place, followed by Honolulu and San Jose.  The top 20 cities have nearly 2 GW of solar PV installed – about as much as the entire US at the end of 2010, says Shining Cities 2017: How Smart Local Policies are Expanding Solar Power in America.

California got 13% of its electricity from solar in 2016, according to the US Energy Information Agency.

Read our article, US Solar Grows 95% in 2016, In Best Year Ever.

Big Announcements

Chicago‘s mayor announced that all government buildings will run on 100% renewable energy by 2025, the most aggressive goal of any US city to date. For perspective, those buildings consume as much energy as 295,000 households. Two of the dirtiest coal plants in the country are also closing.

Florida is finally about to be a solar leader!  ;D Utility Florida Power & Light plans to install an incredible 2.7 GW of solar across the state in the next seven years – enough to power 420,000 homes. After it closes a second coal-fired power plant, solar will be the primary electricity source after natural gas.

New York State committed to 2.6 GW of offshore wind – the first major installation in the US. By 2030, wind will supply energy for 1.25 million homes.

Facebook announced it’s building another 100% wind-powered data center, this time in Nebraska on 144 acres – at least two 450,000 square-foot buildings.

The world’s largest beer-maker, Anheuser-Busch, announced it will run completely on renewables by 2025

It joins 90 other companies and 25 U.S. cities – large and small – that have made this commitment. Cities range from Madison, Wisconsin to Abita Springs, Louisiana. Pueblo, Colorado is doing it to bring electric rates DOWN and get more reliable energy and Georgetown, Texas says wind and solar power are more predictable and lack the volatile prices of oil and gas – a contract signed today sets prices for the next 25 years.

Tesla’s Nevada Gigafactory started manufacturing in January, bringing back battery production to the US, in addition to making the Model 3 electric car.

By 2018, the Gigafactory, which is a third complete, will double the world’s production capacity for lithium-ion batteries and employ 6,500 people. Besides building batteries for its vehicles – which could soon include trucks – Tesla is making batteries for homes and as back ups to the electric grid. 95% of components will be made in the US, including the enormous 70 MW solar array on the roof!

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/big-announcements-renewable-energy/

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: March 30, 2017, 02:45:46 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: The Renewable Energy percentage for 2016 is much higher than 2014 (above chart) and continues to grow month by month.


Der Tagesspiegel Online

We should lower the electricity tax

Germany’s electricity tax is no longer justified in its current form and should be lowered, Hubertus Heil, deputy chairman of the Social Democrats’ (SPD) parliamentary group, said in an interview with Der Tagesspiegel.

The tax was introduced by the SPD and the Green Party at the beginning of the century to support clean energy generation, Heil explained.

“But if power becomes more and more green, it doesn't make sense to tax this green power,” he said.


https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/industry-head-questions-power-tax-green-power-revenues-could-decline/electricity-tax-no-longer-justified




Despite Trump  , more and more countries continue to ratify the Paris Agreement   

Mihai Andrei March 27, 2017

Despite blatant climate change denial from the newly elected US administration, more and more countries understand the urgency of the issue and ratifying the Paris agreement. So far, 139 countries responsible for 82% of the world’s emissions have ratified the pact.


In 2015, world leaders gathered in Paris and decided on an international agreement to curb out carbon dioxide emissions and limit global warming. The agreement signed through a UN framework deals with greenhouse gases emissions mitigation, adaptation, and finance, starting in the year 2020. The agreement entered into force after it was ratified by 55 countries covering over 55% of global emissions.

The US was a key player in the Paris discussions, with then secretary of state John Kerry being one of the most active negotiators and supporters of the pact. But recently, the US did a U-turn and Trump has vowed to destroy Obama’s environmental legacy. Thankfully, countries aren’t falling for that. In the Trump era, 34 countries have formally joined the Paris Agreement. Out of the biggest 25 polluters, just three haven’t ratified the agreement: Russia, Iran, and Turkey.

Just stop and think about this for a moment that the Trump administration wants to pull the US out from the Paris agreement, and is taking steps in this direction.

Out of all the big countries, just Russia (the world’s largest natural gas producer, whose economy is directly tied to fossil fuel companies), Iran (one of the world’s largest oil producers), and Turkey, which is pretty much a dictatorship at this point, have not ratified the Paris agreement — and the US wants to join that list. But there is still hope.

Just last week, the Philippines formally joined the Paris Agreement, after the country’s leader initially called the deal “stupid.” Apparently, after coming into power he understood just how vulnerable his country is to climate change, just like most countries on the globe, and changed his mind. There is a lesson to be learned here, that even stubborn leaders can change their minds when presented with the reality of global warming, and even if Trump decides not to change his mind… the rest of the world is still moving in the right direction. China is taking concrete steps to tackle climate change, becoming the biggest investor in both wind and solar energy, Europe is well underway to achieve their climate goals, and overall, the world seems to be taking much-needed steps towards a sustainable future. Sure, you could argue that it’s not nearly enough, that ambitions are not matched by actions, but for the first time in human history, we have an international framework to tackle global warming — and sticking to it is crucial.

http://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/despite-trump-countries-continue-sign-paris-agreement/
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: March 23, 2017, 07:27:20 pm »

21 Mar 2017 

Countries Join Forces to Accelerate Global Energy Transition

SNIPPET:

Berlin, Germany, 21 March 2017 — Ministers and representatives from frontrunner countries in energy transition met on the sidelines of the Berlin Energy Transition dialogue to discuss the urgency for the world to move onto a trajectory of sustainable low carbon economic growth while meeting increasing global energy demand and addressing climate change. They also emphasized that the technologies and business models to do so are available today.

At the meeting, ministers and high-level representatives from China, Denmark, Germany, Indonesia, Mexico, Morocco, and the United Arab Emirates, agreed to work together to establish an Energy Transition Coalition in the course of this year for accelerating the transition to a sustainable energy future. The Coalition will assemble countries leading in developing long term energy transition strategies to foster investments in a low carbon energy sector. Ensuring increased investor certainty for low carbon economic growth by developing energy transition strategies will be at the heart of the Energy Transition Coalition.

“Few people would have imagined the scale and pace of the energy transition which we are witnessing today. Renewable energy deployment has considerably expanded thanks to reduced costs and record new investments in power generation from renewables. Energy efficiency is picking up and we see important synergies emerging with renewable energy. Many countries are proving that the ongoing energy transition in fact has multiple positive social, economic and environmental impacts,” said International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) Director-General Adnan Z Amin. “By working together, we can hasten the transition to a sustainable energy future,” he added.

http://www.irena.org/News/Description.aspx?NType=A&mnu=cat&PriMenuID=16&CatID=84&News_ID=1485


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: March 16, 2017, 05:37:00 pm »

Quote
As Donald Trump prepares to make his first major rollback of Barack Obama’s climate policies, corporations employing more than 1.85 million people are warning such moves put “American prosperity at risk”.


Businesses urge Trump to rethink climate bonfire

Published on 15/03/2017, 2:48pm

SNIPPET:

The letter said a low carbon economy could be “cost-effective” if policies supported energy efficiency and the transition of the energy system.

“Failure to build a low-carbon economy puts American prosperity at risk. But the right action now will create jobs and boost US competitiveness. We pledge to do our part, in our own operations and beyond, to realise the Paris Agreement’s commitment of a global economy that limits global temperature rise to well below 2 degrees Celsius,” it said.

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/03/15/businesses-worth-1-2tn-urge-trump-rethink-climate-bonfire/
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: March 12, 2017, 02:33:19 pm »

Mar. 10, 2017 04:35PM EST

Elon Musk Tweets Offer to Fix Australia's Energy Crisis in 100 Days  :o

Lorraine Chow

SNIPPET:

Tesla boss and prolific tweeter Elon Musk has made an audacious bet to solve South Australia's energy woes by building a 100-megawatt battery storage farm. If the system is not operational in 100 days, the AUD$33 million (USD$25 million) technology will be provided for free.  :o  ;D

It all started on Thursday when Atlassian CEO and Australian billionaire Mike Cannon-Brookes tweeted an article to Musk that cited a similar offer from Lyndon Rive, who heads Tesla's battery division.

Rive said he would "commit" to installing the 100-300 megawatt hours of batteries to help stop South Australia's recent string of blackouts.

Quote
"We don't have 300MWh sitting there ready to go but I'll make sure there are," he said

Cannon-Brookes then tweeted to Musk asking him if he could really make this happen if the funds were available and the politics were sorted out. Incredibly, Musk didn't just cement the offer, he wagered that Tesla could do it in less than 100 days or else the whole installation would be given free of charge.

"That serious enough for you?" Musk added.   

http://www.ecowatch.com/elon-musk-australia-2309117728.html

Agelbert NOTE: Fossil Fuel Industry PRIVATE REACTION to the above: QUICK! Get our bought and paid for front man in the White House to get our bought and paid for friends in Congress to pass a law increasing "subsidies" for fossil fuels/"National Security" ;), to be "funded", OF COURSE, with a TAX on all new Renewable Energy infrastructure a US Corporation sets up anywhere in the WORLD, not just the USA.   That way, we can make sure those Australians don't get out of line.   

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: March 07, 2017, 01:20:35 pm »

Want Middle Class Manufacturing Jobs? Look to Wind & Solar


SNIPPET:

Corporations love wind and solar. Besides, getting clean energy (they live on this planet too), they get stable, low-cost electricity.  Making fossil fuels dominant again will not only raise prices, but make them much more volatile as we have seen in the past.

The average American is spending the Least Ever on energy
, less than 4% of total annual household spending, thanks to great gains in energy efficiency (i.e. cars use much less gas; appliances use much less electricity), more renewables on the grid and low gas prices, says the 2017 Sustainable Energy in America Factbook,

◾Retail electric prices fell 2.2% in 2016; the average person pays 3.9% less per kilowatt-hour than in 2007.

◾Renewable energy is at record levels, with costs for wind and solar continuing to fall.  In some states, like Iowa, wind is the cheapest form of electricity.

◾Incredibly, energy consumption is falling even with economic growth. GDP is up 12% since 2007, while energy consumption is down 4%.  ;D

◾Natural gas prices are near or at record lows.

Because of these trends, the US beats China, India, Mexico and Japan for energy costs related to manufacturing. It’s one of the things that’s been attracting manufacturers back to the US.

And with all this, economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions are at the lowest levels in 25 years. 

Read our article, Remember, Energy Efficiency & Renewables Mean Lower Electric Bills

Tell me again? Why is TRUMP bringing back a fossil-fuel based economy?   ??? 



http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/want-middle-class-manufacturing-jobs-look-wind-solar/



The Fossil Fuelers   DID THE Climate Trashing, human health depleteing CRIME,   but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or     PAYING THE FINE!     Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!   
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: March 06, 2017, 07:17:45 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: It's good to know that others out there (see below) support the idea of a WWII style effort to transition to 100% Renewable Energy in order to lessen the damage from Catastrophic Climate Change. I started a petition to that effect about three years ago but it didn't catch on too well.  :( However I did get nearly 400 signatures from people all over the world, so I hope that, in some small way, I helped get the ball rolling, so to speak, on the necessity for a wartime effort to do the right thing on behalf of future generations.

This is a summary of Delina's proposal:


Laurence L Delina 


Visiting Fellow at Harvard Kennedy School during the Spring of 2013 and Spring of 2016

Postdoctoral Associate at Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future at Boston University
Rachel Carson Fellow at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (email)


Citation:

Delina, L. & Diesendorf, M., 2013. Is wartime mobilisation a suitable policy model for rapid national climate mitigation?. Energy Policy , 58 , pp. 371-380. Copy at http://j.mp/Zf4x2h

2013_delinadiesendorf-article-is-wartime-mobilisation-a-suitable-policy-model-for-rapid-national-climate-mitigation.pdf 288 KB

Is wartime mobilisation a suitable policy model for rapid national climate mitigation? 


Quote
Abstract:

Climate science suggests that, to have a high probability of limiting global warming to an average temperature increase of 2degC, global greenhouse gas emissions must peak by 2020 and be reduced to close to zero by 2040. However, the current trend is heading towards at least 4degC by 2100 and little effective action is being taken.

This paper commences the process of developing contingency plans for a scenario in which a sudden major global climate impact galvanises governments to implement emergency climate mitigation targets and programs. Climate activists assert that rapid mitigation is feasible, invoking the scale and scope of wartime mobilisation strategies.

This paper draws upon historical accounts of social, technological and economic restructurings in several countries during World War 2 in order to investigate potential applications of wartime experience to radical, rigorous and rapid climate mitigation strategies.

We focus on the energy sector, the biggest single contributor to global climate change, in developed and rapidly developing countries. We find that, while wartime experience suggests some potential strategies for rapid climate mitigation in the areas of finance and labour, it also has severe limitations, resulting from its lack of democratic processes.

link to article

Preprint: http://bit.ly/18VA2FD

Presented at the Earth System Governance 2013 Tokyo Conference: http://bit.ly/18Em3Bt

Presented at the Tyndall Conference on Radical Emissions Reduction at the Royal Society, 2013: http://bit.ly/1bXL2mj
Last updated on 11/18/2016

http://scholar.harvard.edu/laurencedelina/publications/wartime-mobilisation-suitable-policy-model-rapid-national-climate

Agelbert NOTE: I posted the following in June of 2014. It evidences that we CAN do the above, if we had a government that actually cared about future generations.


June 03, 2014, 02:17:04 am

It's time for Americans in the Service of Future Generations to GET WITH THE PROGRAM! We did it with the massive, industrial scale building of Liberty Ships in WWII. We can do it again with the massive, industrial scale building of Liberty Renewable Energy Machines.

Country of Origin: United States of America
Manufacturers: Alabama Dry Dock Co, Bethlehem-Fairfield Shipyards Inc, California Shipbuilding Corp, Delta Shipbuilding Co, J A Jones Construction Co (Brunswick), J A Jones Construction Co (Panama City), Kaiser Co, Marinship Corp, New England Shipbuilding Corp, North Carolina Shipbuilding Co, Oregon Shipbuilding Corp, Permanente Metals Co, St Johns River Shipbuilding Co, Southeastern Shipbuilding Corp, Todd Houston Shipbuilding Corp, Walsh-Kaiser Co.

Major Variants: General cargo, tanker, collier, (modifications also boxed aircraft transport, tank transport,
hospital ship, troopship).

Role: Cargo transport, troop transport, hospital ship, repair ship.
Operated by: United States of America, Great Britain, (small quantity also Norway, Belgium, Soviet Union, France, Greece, Netherlands and other nations).

First Laid Down: 30th April 1941
Last Completed: 30th October 1945

Units: 2,711 ships laid down, 2,710 entered service.

Despite being initially labelled an 'ugly duckling' by the newspapers, and intended to be expendable if necessary, the ships eventually caught the imagination of the public. They proved to be easy to build, reliable and versatile, exceeding even the most optimistic expectations for their overall contribution to the war effort.

It was a project on a massive scale, undertaken with great speed and efficiency. The first Liberty ship (the Patrick Henry) was launched on 27 September 1941 (and completed on 30 December 1941), which was an incredible feat considering that just seven months previously neither shipyard nor workforce existed to build her.   


Average Liberty Ship deadweight = 12,500 metric tons. (33,875,000 metric tons of ships built!).


Convert short tons to metric tons by multiplying the number of short tons by 0.907184

On the GE 1.5-megawatt model the total weight is 164 tons. The corresponding weights for the Vestas V90 are 75, 40, and 152, total 267 tons, and for the Gamesa G87 72, 42, and 220, total 334 tons.

164 x 0.907184 =  148.8 metric tons 

33,875,000 divided by 148.8 =  227,655  wind turbines X 1.5 MW =  341,482 MW = .3415 TW x 20% capacity factor = 68.3 x 24 hours X 365 days = 598.3 TWh/year.

2012 wind power production   United States 140.9 TWh  26.4 % of world total wind power.

1 TWhour per year = 1,000,000 MW / 8765.8 hours in a year) 114 megawatts per hour.

USA total annual electric consumption = 3,886,400,000 MWh = 3,886,400 = GWh = 3,886 TWh.


3886.4 / 598.3 =  20 to 40% of US electrical demand just from Wind Turbines in less than five years of Liberty Ship scale manufacturing wind turbine tonnage.


Liberty Ship scale manufacturing wind turbine tonnage can provide  25 to 40% of US electrical demand  in less than five years. Double that in ten years and add in Solar Panels, Geothermal, Tide and Undersea Current and we have MORE than 100% Renewable Energy!    


WE can use the excess to bioremediate the environmental damage done in the last 100 years.  WE can rid ourselves of Planet Polluting Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Poison Plants in a decade and win the Climate Victory for Future Generations! We can set an example for all the nations on the Earth of the Proper Path to a Viable and Vibrant Bounty filled, harmonious Biosphere.


Let's GET IT DONE! Our children and grandchildren are counting on us!


http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/general-discussion/historical-documentaries/msg1214/#msg1214

May 25, 2014, 03:46:49 pm

https://youtu.be/x8RszOQwWGY
We can do this AGAIN, THIS TIME for renewable energy harvesting machines and sustainable technology. 
http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/general-discussion/you-will-have-to-pick-a-side-there-is-no-longer-room-for-procrastination/msg46/#msg46





Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 28, 2017, 04:16:09 pm »

The Good News
We all know the bad news when it comes to climate change. What most people don’t know is that there is also a lot of good news. In this video we explore some of that good news, like the fact that real solutions exist and that we’re already seeing the benefits of them. 


24 Hours of Reality: Field Report - India's Barefoot College
Watch how harnessing human potential along with the sun is improving millions of impoverished lives.



Actor Ian Somerhalder is the man on the street in the Green Apple, interviewing New Yorkers about climate solutions and making the day of more than one teenager at link below:

http://www.climaterealityproject.org/video/24-hours-reality-man-street-ian-somerhalder-part-2
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 28, 2017, 01:11:39 pm »


Energy Policies of IEA Countries - New Zealand 2017 Review
Thursday, 23 February 2017, 12:43 pm
Press Release: International Energy Agency 

Energy Policies of IEA Countries - New Zealand 2017 Review


Since the last IEA in-depth review in 2010, New Zealand has further developed its energy policy, as reflected in its energy strategy to 2021 and new rules for more competitive electricity markets. With its unique resource base, New Zealand is a success story for the development of renewable energy  ;D, notably hydro and geothermal, without government subsidies. Geographically isolated, New Zealand has developed robust policies for security of supply. Outside of its largely low-carbon power sector, managing the economy’s energy intensity and greenhouse gas emissions while still remaining competitive and growing remains a challenge.

The IEA review highlights the areas that are critical to the success of the energy policy agenda in New Zealand. To support sustainable growth in line with the Paris Agreement, the government should facilitate technology opportunities for renewable energy and energy efficiency, in buildings, industrial heat, transport and agriculture. The government has ambitious plans to boost the share of electric vehicles and renewable energy. The country has a flexible power system, but future growth requires fine-tuning of market rules in favour of even more flexibility, demand response, smart and effective electricity retail and distribution. While security of supply is well ensured by effective markets, an energy-constraint system can benefit from market-based risk managements tools, including a safety net for dry years as well as access to global LNG markets.

This review analyses the energy policy challenges facing New Zealand and provides recommendations to help guide the country towards a more secure, sustainable and affordable energy future.

Edition: 2017
243 pages

Download publication
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 27, 2017, 09:23:09 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: I placed this video here so you can settle in your mind, once and for all, whether or not it is possible to run our country on 100% Renewable Energy. WE CAN! Hard Boiled HONEST scientists have done the math. WE CAN!

Bill Nye And Bernie Sanders Discuss Climate Change (Full)


But Trump and the polluters that put him in the White House DO NOT WANT TO DO IT because it will kill their polluting gravy train. They KNOW the threat to our climate and they DO NOT CARE.


But IF we don't do it, we will NOT survive.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 26, 2017, 06:10:33 pm »


States Lead the Way Toward 100% Renewable Energy

Feb. 23, 2017 02:19PM EST

SNIPPET:

Lorraine Chow

Lawmakers in California and Massachusetts have recently introduced bills that would require their respective states to get all of its electricity from renewable energy sources.

California Senate leader Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles), who introduced SB 584 last Friday, would require the Golden State to have a carbon-free grid by 2045. It would also accelerate the state's current goal of hitting 50 percent renewables by 2030 to 2025.

De León actually helped pushed through the initial 50 percent by 2030 law two years ago, but as he told the Los Angeles Times the legislation did not go far enough.

"We probably should have shot for the stars," he said.

As InsideClimate News noted, California is already well on its way:

"The California Energy Commission says the state got about 27 percent of its electricity from renewables last year, slightly better than the 25 percent required by law. Capacity has more than doubled over the past decade. California's largest utilities have also said they are ahead of schedule for meeting their 2020 goal."

Massachusetts legislators have also announced similar clean energy efforts. HD.3357 and SD.1932 was introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Sean Garballey and Marjorie Decker and in the Senate by Sen. Jamie Eldridge.

The measure would require Massachusetts to get all of its electricity from renewable sources by 2035. All of its energy needs, including heating and transportation, would have to come from renewable sources by 2050.

So far, the only state that has an official 100 percent renewable energy standard is Hawaii.   Hawaii's aggressive clean energy mandate—requiring the state's electricity to come from renewable sources no later than 2045—was enacted back in 2015.

http://www.ecowatch.com/renewable-energy-jacobson-2278462825.html
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 24, 2017, 02:05:30 pm »

February 24, 2017

India Doubles Down on Renewables  

Carl Pope

After a week in India, despite crowding, intensity and poverty, there is an undeniable lightness from plunging into a country firmly fixed on its future, not its past, moving forward however jerkily and energized.
 
Here's the harvest of Thursday's headlines: the Government of India is doubling the scale of the country's solar parks, adding 20 gigawatts, more than total U.S. solar capacity; Great Britain's development finance institution, CDC, announced a major new solar initiative targeted at India's undeserved eastern states; India's largest network of vocational institutes, run by the Catholic church, pledged to shift to renewable energy; Jharkand, India's West Virginia and biggest coal producer, plans to build more solar capacity than its peak internal demand for power; the Indian Supreme Court stepped up its crack-down on water pollution from industrial facilities; analysts projected aggressive bidding Thursday for India's first reverse auction for wind power, with prices expected to set new records; and finally the government announced that starting next year it would prepare a special budget annex assessing the steps it is taking to deal with  climate change.


That's one day.   

Meanwhile, traffic remains mind numbingly congested; but the future is being sketched out. Tide-hailing companies like Ola and Uber have grown so fast that they are beginning to drive up the wage scales for private chauffeurs. More and more Indians are leaving their personal cars at home as they brave grid-lock, prompting the government to schedule a high level strategy session Monday and Tuesday on whether India can move directly to a world of electric, shared passenger vehicles and skip the phase of mass personal ownership of cars altogether.

Volkswagen, as it plans its global recovery from the diesel cheating scandal, picked India's Tata Motors as its preferred strategic partner.

Air pollution is taking a devastating toll; but it has also emerged as a major issue as India's political parties contest a set of critical state elections across India's heavily polluted Gangetic plain.

India has decisively—if not irrevocably—bet its future on clean energy and low carbon innovation. Only if this disruptive pathway fails the country's aspirations to lift its masses out of poverty is India likely to revert to a fossil fuel reliant development model. This looks like the biggest opportunity clean energy has ever had.

Both the government and India's most prestigious (and caution) energy think tank, TERI, have declared that except for plants already in the pipeline, India will need no more coal power until after 2025, because planned renewable electricity will more than meet demand. The draft National Electricity Plan calls for installing renewable power capacity equal to 85 percent of peak demand, with no new coal at all.

Serious conversations are underway about how to jump start the needed investments in transmission. The grid must carry this enormous increase in renewable power to the load centers where it is needed which, as in most countries, are often distant from the prime wind and solar regions.

India is being smart. The record setting bids at the last solar auction (less than $0.05/kwh) were powered by some very smart auction design; setting up solar farms relieved developers of the risk and delays associated with obtaining land, the risk of transmission stranding was addressed by pledging to pay for electrons generated even if the grid to deliver them to customers had not yet been completed and hedging mechanisms allowed the projects access to low cost foreign borrowing. (Neighboring countries like Pakistan, Indonesia, Vietnam and Bangladesh pay far more, usually twice as much, for wind and solar, even when they have access to cheaper capital, because they have not gotten the policy basics right).

India's low carbon strategies are moving beyond the power sector. A goal of a 100 percent electrified vehicle fleet by 2030 is moving into the implementation phase. A senior academic from IIT Madras, Ashok Jhunjhunwala, has been given the lead oversight role and sees the problem as primarily one of industrial policy; if India can obtain and master the key electric drive vehicle technologies—solar cells, batteries and highly efficient vehicle cooling technology—electric drive vehicle's potential to displace imported and polluting oil will then create the necessary short-term policy support to end the era of oil powered combustion engines in India.

The Rail Ministry, led by Suresh Prabhu, a strong clean energy advocate, has been aggressively pursuing new strategies to enable India to shift a major share of its good traffic off of roads and trucks and onto climate friendly rail.

And, as mentioned above, India is placing competition for prowess in manufacturing low carbon equipment and infrastructure at the center of its economic development strategy.

India has always been better at thoughtful aspirations than at implementation; each one of these goals and steps faces multiple challenges. High domestic interest rates and foreign investor wariness of the security of long term loans to India, are probably the biggest threat—clean energy provides free fuel, but also demands more up front capital investment. Indian solar developers pay 50 percent more for the capital they use than those in the Persian Gulf. But those conversations are a lot more creative and energizing than the rehash of tired 1970's "environment vs. the economy" narrative that President Trump  and the Republican Congress seem determined to rescue from the ash heap of history.

http://www.ecowatch.com/india-double-down-renewable-energy-2280743396.html
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 16, 2017, 12:10:43 pm »




THURSDAY, February 16, 2017     

FIVE REASONS YOUR COMPANY SHOULD BUY OFF-SITE RENEWABLES IN 2017
 

 Corporate interest in renewable energy is skyrocketing as companies realize that off-site projects can offer the flexibility and scale necessary to meet their needs. But despite growing interest, less than one-fourth of corporate renewable energy buyers in RMI’s Business Renewables Center network have completed an off-site transaction to date. Here are five reasons why your company should buy off-site renewables in 2017.

Read More.
http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2016_02_13_five_reasons_to_buy_off_site_renewables_2017
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 16, 2017, 11:41:12 am »

Massachusetts Might Become America's First State to Commit to 100% Renewables  ;D

SNIPPET:

"The federal government is moving backwards on clean energy. So, the states must lead," said S. David Freeman, a long-time utility executive at Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, the New York Power Authority and the Tennessee Valley Authority. "Massachusetts can show the way by enacting the 100 percent renewable bills and by so doing save consumers millions of dollars in the future with a free fuel energy supply."

Given the considerable resistance renewables are likely to face in Congress   and the Trump administration , clean energy proponents are looking to state and local governments, businesses and institutions to ensure continued progress. In addition to the campaign in Massachusetts, Environment America and its partners are planning campaigns to get other states to go 100 percent renewable. And, today they will launch an effort to persuade America's colleges and universities to make similar commitments.

http://www.ecowatch.com/massachusetts-renewable-energy-2261007001.html
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 09, 2017, 10:52:08 pm »



Deutsche Welle

What happens with German renewables in the dead of winter? ???

Dark and calm winter days have led some commentators to suggest that renewables are unsuitable for providing a secure energy supply, reports Tamsin Walker for Deutsche Welle. Utility association BDEW argues this weather pattern proves flexible gas and coal power stations are needed to integrate renewables into the power system.

But green energy provider Lichtblick told the author the problem is solvable because Germany is on the cusp of a whole new era in the way renewable power can be stored. 

http://www.dw.com/en/what-happens-with-german-renewables-in-the-dead-of-winter/a-37462540
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 09, 2017, 09:54:42 pm »



Feb 9, 2017

Authors Jules Kortenhorst CEO

Applying Hope in Today’s Tumultuous Times

In May of 2011, Rocky Mountain Institute cofounder Amory Lovins started his commencement address at the College of Natural Resources, University of California at Berkeley, talking about applied hope. “Many of us here stir and strive in the spirit of applied hope,” Amory said. “We work to make the world better, not from some airy theoretical hope, but in the pragmatic and grounded conviction that starting with hope and acting out of hope can cultivate a different kind of world worth being hopeful about… Applied hope requires fearlessness. Fear of specific and avoidable dangers has evolutionary value… But pervasive dread, lately promoted by some who want to keep us pickled in fear, is numbing and demotivating. When I give a talk, sometimes a questioner details the many bad things happening in the world, all the suffering in the universe, and asks how dare I propose solutions: isn’t resistance futile? The only response I’ve found is to ask, as gently as I can, ‘I can see why you feel that way. Does it make you more effective?’”

Today more than ever, Amory’s words ring with wisdom and insight. Could he possibly have foreseen, more than 5 years ago, the current state of affairs, where many of us in the environmental movement are struck by fear and worry? How do we find comfort in applying hope to our current situation? How do we apply hope to the urgent agenda of the energy transition, when the new administration is creating so much uncertainty about the path to a sustainable energy future, which we have been plotting for the 35 years RMI has been in existence?

The first hopeful point is that so much of the transition is now global, broadly supported, cost-effective, and therefore more and more irreversible. In recent years, the progress of renewable energy, electric vehicles, and other sustainable energy technologies has made a sustainable energy future both technically feasible and commercially viable. The transition toward low-carbon energy now has the support of business leaders from around the world, and solar and wind power enjoy broad public support from across the U.S. political spectrum. Countries across the globe are starting to accelerate the decarbonization of their energy systems, with some of the boldest ambition coming from vulnerable and developing nations. As a result, it is hard to see how the U.S. would return to burning coal or wasting energy as the economic energy solution of the future.

Similarly, the agreement reached in Paris in late 2015 and ratified last fall is not buckling under the uncertainty raised by the new U.S. administration. In fact, countries around the world have underlined their commitment to the Paris agreement. At the 2017 World Economic Forum annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, Chinese President Xi Jinping stated in his opening plenary address: “The Paris Agreement is a hard-won achievement which is in keeping with the underlying trend of global development. All signatories should stick to it instead of walking away from it as this is a responsibility we must assume for future generations.” And the consensus among nation states is undergirded by similar commitments and actions from cities and provinces, where so much of the regulations and implementation of the energy revolution actually take shape.

Even while the new administration may be equivocating on its commitment to the Paris agreement and on the facts of climate science, civil society, business leaders, and philanthropists are not confused at all. Our team at RMI is doubling down, defining new ways to scale our impact, and ensuring that our programs are robust in the new political context. Our business partners are standing with us, and are telling us that they are not changing their direction. In fact, at a recent conference for members of our Business Renewables Center, 67 percent stated that the election has no impact on their renewable engagements in the U.S., while 25 percent said that it will actually increase their engagement. And increasingly our donors are helping us out, finding new and increased ways to support our work and that of our colleagues across civil society.

So all is well? We can be optimistic? No! Clarity of direction in the energy transition is a powerful enabler for the investments that are needed. This government is not yet providing that clarity. Similarly, we are concerned that science, facts, and logical arguments are no longer valued. And above all, we are deeply worried that our planet cannot afford slowing down progress toward a clean, prosperous, and secure low-carbon future.

But we go back to Amory’s wisdom and we apply hope.

First, we will continue to speak truth to power, to let our arguments do the convincing, and to stick with our mantra: In God we trust, everyone else bring facts. And for the avoidance of doubt, our government leaders fall into the second category.

We will cherish diversity, we will continue to build our international presence, and we will treat all people with respect no matter their gender, race, religion, sexuality, political convictions, or nationality.

We will look after each other, we will back each other in the battles to come, we will stand together and prove that we are in fact that unrivaled team we seek to be. And we have made the commitment to our colleagues that as an organization, they can all count on us having their backs.

And above all, we will not back down; in fact we will double down. We will carry on with our work in the conviction that we have the truth on our side, and justice in our corner. That what we do matters now more than ever. We sincerely hope that in this experiment of applied hope we find you on our side.   


http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2017_02_09_applying_hope
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 09, 2017, 03:21:08 pm »

Dear Dave Pugner,

Nuclear Energy is not Renewable Energy. Any discussion of Nuclear Power belongs in the Nuke Puke board.

I have moved your post and my reply Here.

Examples of Renewable Energy:
Posted by: Dave Pugner
« on: February 08, 2017, 02:10:30 pm »

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: January 20, 2017, 12:31:22 pm »

Quote
An average server draws 400 watts/ hour, ...

I stopped reading at that point because the author obviously doesn't know their watts from their elbow - or to be more accurate, Energy from Power, there's no such thing as watts/hour.

And 400 watts is a daft figure based on the maximum power rating of a desktop PC's power supply, used to power the computer, the GPU, the hard disc drives, optical disc drive, all the USB attached devices, the Ethernet connection.  Servers don't have any of that crap, and go out of their way to use low power, about 3 watts.

So can we assume that you think the internet can (and will) be powered by renewable energy then? 

What would your more enlightened calculations be for the amount of energy that the internet gobbles up?


Lucid,
The biggest energy hogs in human civilization are Oil Refineries. For example, the state of TEXAS uses 44% MORE electricity (because of OIL refinery DEMAND for electricity, whether coal, wind, nuke or gas sourced) than the next one in line (California, FAR more populous than Texas).

NO, the ERoEI of OIL DOES NOT adequately take into account that electrical energy use when figuring ERoEI of gasoline (OF COURSE!   ) or ANY OTHER OIL REFINERY PRODUCT. THAT is why the term they use cleverly has the word "invested" in it. The TRICK is to make people believe that  the amount of ENERGY required to produce the  fossil fuel product is LESS than the amount you GET from it. THAT IS A LIE.

However, until recently, since the fossil fuelers are massively "subsidized" (THEFT from taxpayers all over the WORLD) the MONEY you INVESTED provided a nice fat return.

Both PV and wind power, even with the pittance in subsidies given to them, NOW have a higher ERoEI in money.


When pollution remediation costs are figured (something NOT included in ANY fossil Fuel ERoEI figures that Palloy has quoted here from time to time.   ), Renewable Energy ALWAYS had a higher ERoEI than fossil fuels or nuclear CRAP.

Germany gets all that. Here's some projections form Germany on comparable costs of different energy sources projected to 2050.
 


Agora Energiewende

Renewable vs fossil power systems: a cost comparison (Germany  8))

By 2050, an electricity supply based on renewable energies could be either approximately as expensive as or even cheaper than a fossil-based electricity system, if the cost of a tonne of CO₂ is 50 euros or more, according to a scenario comparison by the Institute of Applied Ecology (Öko-Institut), commissioned by think tank Agora Energiewende.*

The analysis showed that the cost comparison depended mainly on future fuel and CO₂ prices, which were difficult to foretell, according to Patrick Graichen, director of Agora Energiewende.

Yet, the analysis made clear: “Not to carry out an energy transition does not mean one doesn’t have energy costs – but different ones. And those could be higher than originally expected,” said Graichen in the foreword.

A renewable energy power system would have the added value of “shielding the national economy as a whole from increasingly volatile price developments for fossil fuels,”
says the analysis. Climate protection targets cannot be reached with any of the fossil-based scenarios.

Comparison of total system costs of predominantly renewable, coal and natural gas-based power systems with CO2 prices of 50 euros in 2050. Source - Öko-Institut / Agora Energiewende 2017.

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/greens-propose-coal-exit-roadmap-german-power-system-costs-2050

*Like the Clean Energy Wire, Agora Energiewende is a project funded by Stiftung Mercator and the European Climate Foundation.


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: January 19, 2017, 07:13:59 pm »

3 Midwestern States That Refuse to Abandon the Renewable Energy Revolution 
 

Natural Resources Defense Council

Jan. 18, 2017 04:13PM EST

SNIPPET:

By Susan Cosier

On the final day of the Illinois State Assembly's 2016 session, a bill was passed that environmentalists can celebrate—one that significantly increases incentives for renewable energy and energy-efficiency requirements.

Though the Democratic-led congress debated the Future Energy Jobs bill for months, legislators and Gov. Bruce Rauner worked together on a bipartisan compromise. And just in time.

http://www.ecowatch.com/renewable-energy-midwest-2197961674.html
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: January 13, 2017, 02:57:46 pm »



Agora Energiewende

Renewable vs fossil power systems: a cost comparison (Germany  8))

By 2050, an electricity supply based on renewable energies could be either approximately as expensive as or even cheaper than a fossil-based electricity system, if the cost of a tonne of CO₂ is 50 euros or more, according to a scenario comparison by the Institute of Applied Ecology (Öko-Institut), commissioned by think tank Agora Energiewende.*

The analysis showed that the cost comparison depended mainly on future fuel and CO₂ prices, which were difficult to foretell, according to Patrick Graichen, director of Agora Energiewende.

Yet, the analysis made clear: “Not to carry out an energy transition does not mean one doesn’t have energy costs – but different ones. And those could be higher than originally expected,” said Graichen in the foreword.

A renewable energy power system would have the added value of “shielding the national economy as a whole from increasingly volatile price developments for fossil fuels,”
says the analysis. Climate protection targets cannot be reached with any of the fossil-based scenarios.

Comparison of total system costs of predominantly renewable, coal and natural gas-based power systems with CO2 prices of 50 euros in 2050. Source - Öko-Institut / Agora Energiewende 2017.

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/greens-propose-coal-exit-roadmap-german-power-system-costs-2050

*Like the Clean Energy Wire, Agora Energiewende is a project funded by Stiftung Mercator and the European Climate Foundation.


+-Recent Topics

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
May 25, 2017, 10:43:46 pm

Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution by AGelbert
May 25, 2017, 07:16:51 pm

Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) by AGelbert
May 25, 2017, 07:04:33 pm

Key Historical Events ...THAT YOU MAY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF by AGelbert
May 25, 2017, 03:13:10 pm

Money by AGelbert
May 24, 2017, 07:49:45 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
May 24, 2017, 07:35:05 pm

Pollution by AGelbert
May 24, 2017, 02:27:53 pm

Profiles in Courage by AGelbert
May 24, 2017, 02:01:01 pm

Wind Power by AGelbert
May 24, 2017, 01:29:42 pm

Mechanisms of Prejudice: Hidden and Not Hidden by AGelbert
May 23, 2017, 10:18:14 pm

Free Web Hit Counter By CSS HTML Tutorial