Waste Based Society

[agelbert]

Coal Industry Must Wake Up – Renewables Are The Future             
June 24, 2013 Giles Parkinson

This article first appeared on RenewEconomy

It is staggering to observe that even in modern sophisticated economies such as the US, Australia and UK – which are supposed to have modern, sophisticated political systems (no really, don’t laugh) – that the role of renewables in the world’s future energy systems is constantly underplayed.

This has probably got something to do with the way that mainstream media handles the issue. In its pursuit of division, fear and controversy, it’s happy to oblige the tactics of delay and misinformation from the fossil fuel industry, that is seeking to protect and prolong several trillion dollars of investments and revenue streams.

Too often, renewable energy is portrayed as an expensive and unnecessary plaything or indulgence. But the media is not solely to blame. There is a shocking lack of vision at the political level too, with the notable exception of the Greens. Conservative political parties, in Australia in particular, constantly use green energy as a scapegoat for problems elsewhere; often for superfluous and inefficient grid upgrades.

But one thing should be made clear: whichever way you cut the future energy outlook, and whichever way you attack the challenge of climate change and the goal of reducing emissions, two technology solutions dominate all others – energy efficiency and renewable energy.

Even if the pro-nuclear lobbies and those who still hold on to the dream of carbon capture and storage have their way, the investment in those technologies will pale in comparison to that needed for renewables – be it in solar PV or solar thermal with storage, wind energy (onshore and offshore), hydro, biomass, or the emerging technologies such as wave and tidal.

This is true on two counts. Already, solar PV – and the arrival of socket parity in more than 100 countries – is providing an economic rationale for investment in renewables, regardless of climate policies. Utility-scale wind is cheaper than new fossil fuel plants in many countries – particularly in energy starved developing nations in Africa and Asia – and utility-scale solar will follow soon enough. Once climate policy is taken into the equation, the impact is even more dramatic.

This first graph below – taken from the International Energy Agency’s recent “Redrawing the climate energy map” publication – probably best sums up the situation. It is the IEA’s take on where the greatest emissions reductions are going to take place in the energy industry if the world is going to meet its climate goals. This graph illustrates its “delayed” scenario, which takes into account the probability that governments will not ramp up their policy actions by 2014 – as would be prudent – but would delay a few years.

Energy efficiency and renewable energy sources account for well over half of the abatement. Nuclear and CCS – even if they meet the IEA’s optimistic scenarios, which, given the financing problems for nuclear and the technology challenges for CCS, is unlikely – they still account for less than one-quarter of anticipated abatement. If either of those two technologies fall short, then energy efficiency and renewables will have to take up the slack.



Given this, there are no prizes for guessing where the best returns are going to be made over the next two decades, a key factor that seems to go largely absent when renewables are discussed in the frame of short terms costs and not in the context of long-term opportunities.

This next graph illustrates this point. It’s the difference between policies that have been promised and enacted by leading economies so far (the blue New Policies scenario), and the policies required to meet the climate goals (green). Either way, revenues from renewables outstrip those from new nuclear and fossil fuel plants combined, even if nothing more is done, and are nearly double when the world takes serious action. Could there be any clearer demonstration of where the future is?



The political debate in Australia around fossil fuels – and by extension renewables – is still based on the assumption that international demand is inexhaustible as the growing middle classes of emerging superpowers such as India and China require more electricity to power their new gadgets and appliances.

But the IEA makes clear that renewables will dominate the world’s new capacity – even out to 2020 – with some $2 trillion likely to be invested in hydro, wind, solar, biomass and other renewables. Australia’s share of that, with current policies such as the 20 per cent renewable energy target (should it be retained) is a modest $20 billion. That does not even meet our pro-rata share on a population basis.

“Despite the insufficiency of global action to date, limiting the global temperature rise to 2 °C remains technically feasible, though it is extremely challenging,” the IEA says.
“To achieve our 450 Scenario, which is consistent with a 50% chance of keeping to 2 °C, the growth in global energy-related CO2 emissions needs to halt and start to reverse within the current decade. Clear political resolution, backed by suitable policies and financial frameworks, is needed to facilitate the necessary investment in low-carbon energy supply and in energy efficiency.” Can’t be any clearer than that.

Still, the fossil fuel industry, and particularly the Australian Coal Association, has its head stuck firmly in the ground. Its CEO Nikki Williams is insisting that there is no such thing as “unburnable carbon”, and that all carbon can, and should be burned.

It’s a premise based on the hope that CCS will deliver, and deliver on time. Curiously, the coal industry has done precious little to fund the research, but it still hangs on its promise. Williams’ hopes are based on a business-as-usual scenario – or, at best, the New Policies scenario. But as the IEA points out in the graph below, even with CCS – the total market for coal-fired power stations is going to fall dramatically in the coming decades. Unless, of course, we just ignore the climate.

As said James Leaton, research director from the Carbon Tracker Report which has been pushing the concept of unburnable carbon to the financial community, pointing out its risks: “The denial of the potential for unburnable carbon is exactly what will create a carbon bubble, wasted capital, and stranded assets – the coal industry needs to accept the need to change our energy mix and address air quality and climate change now.”



Giles Parkinson (90 Posts)
Giles is the founding editor of RenewEconomy.com.au, an Australian-based website that provides news and analysis on cleantech, carbon and climate issues. Giles is based in Sydney and is watching the (slow, but quickening) transformation of Australia's energy grid with great interest.

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/06/24/coal-industry-must-wake-up-renewables-are-the-future/#PXeswXBpHMeDw03d.99

• Tweet

[agelbert]

I listened to the  Podcasts by Monsta with Gail Tverberg and RE.

I just heard both parts. It is refreshing that she knows that nuclear doesn't have much future in the USA but that , "well people will just have to live with higher cancer rates near used fuel rod assembly storage sites"  seems a bit calloused. This is the same person that moments later says you have to be "careful" with renewables because making them on a large scale is extremely polluting. 

Apparently she considers the status quo energy wise acceptable. I don't agree.

Gail's "wisdom":

1) Renewables are not a game changer.

2) Fossil fuels will ALWAYS be the MAIN ENERGY SOURCE.

3) Pollution from fossil fuels and nuclear is ACCEPTABLE.

4) Pollution from making Renewables is NOT acceptable (rare earths BAD, several billion ICEs from mining to refining to smelting to manufacturing GOOD  ).

5) Pollution from Coal is part of the status quo and we are going to use MORE coal as natural gas prices rise (It's all about price, not pollution ).

6) Energy from local resources is nice but the BIG, LARGE, CENTRALIZED POWER GRID WILL ALWAYS REQUIRE FOSSIL FUELS.


At any rate, I salute Monsta and RE for interviewing her.  She sounded friendly, self assured and honest.

I do agree with her take on the financial debt triggers that exacerbate the energy situation.

I disagree with most of what she said about renewables and fossil fuels.

I find it illogical that she voices concerns about pollution generated to create renewables infrastructure and is  silent about the pollution NOW BEING GENERATED to manufacture and service BILLIONS of internal combustion engines. An objective person would do an apples to apples comparison.

With this in mind I asked myself the follwing question, "How much energy is used to manufacture the ICE in the USA? Is it more or less than is required for an equivalent amount of electric motors/generators to run an equivalent amount of cars?

It HAS to be much less for renewables because:

A) Electric motors are about 1/5 as big as an ICE for the same amount of power (less metal to mine).

B) The ICE metals must, unlike wind generators and electric motors, be high temperature alloys as well (require higher temperatures to make).

After both types of motors hit the road,  the fact that electric motors are 70% efficient and the ICE is only 18 to 20% efficient would result in a 20 or 30% energy use REDUCTION for the SAME amount of EVs on the road as ICEs now.

Still pondering these thoughts, I decided to check the weight, horsepower and equivalent kW EV of a few popular cars.

2013 Model Year:

362 hp (270 kW)   Tesla base Model S                                    4,647 lbs.
300 hp                 BMW 535i  xDrive Sedan                             4,233 lbs.
110 hp (80 kW)    Nissan Leaf                                                3,291 lbs.
175 hp                 Ford fusion  S 4dr Front-wheel Drive Sedan  3,427 lbs.

Is it realistic to imagine a world of Model S and Leaf cars instead of BMW 535i and Ford Fusion ICE cars?

The following data is a bit dated (1996-2000) but it is accurate and useful for energy comparisons.

Energy used in manufacturing the Internal Combustion Engine versus Renewables.

The energy intensity involved in internal combustion engines production is comparable in energy intensity to the motor vehicle parts and accessories industry.

This industry is comprised 294 establishments and 250 companies according to the 1996 Census.
54% of manufacturers employ less than 20 people.
26.5% of the total employ 100 or more employees.
− Average employment is 198 people per establishment.
− Median employment is 17 people per establishment.
Market power is very concentrated within the top level of this oligopoly, despite the large
numbers of small companies.

In 1996 the segment,

Purchased 2,292 million kWh of electricity ( 2.292 TWh) at cost of $93.4 million. In the same year, the cost of purchased fuels was $28.8 million (equivalent to 0.707 TWh).

2.292 + 0.707 = 2.998 TWh (Since it can be assumed that, 4 years later a bit more electricity was used, I have rounded off to 3 TWh for the year 2000).

Averaged 0.31kWh per dollar of value added. This is about the same as that calculated for
the fabricated metal industry (0.33kWh/$VA).

http://www.energy.ca.gov/process/pubs/sic3519_internalcombeng.pdf

Total electrical energy consumption USA in the year 2000:
Purchased 3,365,000 million kWh of electricity ( 3,365 TWh).

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=us&v=81   

SO, of the 3,365 TWh of electricity consumed in the year 2000, about 3 TWh was consumed to manufacture Internal Combustion Engines (ICE). Since the servicing industry is COMPARABLE to the manufacturing industry of the ICE, a total of approximately 6 TWh is used for ICE manufacturing and servicing industry energy expenditure.

That is about 2/10 of 1% of all electricity consumed just to manufacture and provide replacement parts for the ICE. It may not seem like a lot but 6 TERAWATT hours is 6 BILLION Kilowatt hours.

Is this figured in Professor Hall's EROEI for GASOLINE? NOPE!

But why should it, you might ask? Because gasoline is rather USELESS if you don't burn it in an ICE! 

Has Gail Tverberg considered the pollution from 6 TWh of fossil fuel utility power plant electricity when she compares the manufacture of ELECTRIC MOTORS/GENERATORS with the ICE? I don't know. I've never heard her say anything about it. And as to Gail's concern about  RARE EARTH MAGNETS, they have several applications UNRELATED to WIND GENERATORS. Is she concerned about them too in regard to "pollution from mining and producing" them?

Here's the list from Wikipeda:

computer hard drives

wind turbine generators

audio speakers / headphones

bicycle dynamos

fishing reel brakes

permanent magnet motors in cordless tools

high-performance AC servo motors

traction motors and integrated starter-generators in hybrid and electric vehicles

self-powered flashlights, employing rare earth magnets for generating electricity in a shaking motion

industrial uses such as maintaining product purity, equipment protection, and quality control

Linear motors (used in Mag-lev trains, etc.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare-earth_magnet

In summary, there is NO VALID REASON, based on excess pollution and/or energy required to manufacture and service renewables, to AVOID replacing the ICE infrastructure because the ICE infrastructure uses MORE energy and puts out MORE pollution for the SAME amount of ENERGY RETURN.

So if an EQUIVALENT sized EV transportation system requires about 50-60% LESS energy to manufacture AND run than the fossil fuel based transportation system, WHY HAVEN'T WE SWITCHED TO IT?

Because vested interests don't want us too. The propaganda and foot dragging is quite imaginative out there.

But when the apples to apples comparison is done, fossil fuels and the ICE mobile pollution spewing pig  is more costly BOTH in terms of pollution AND energy to manufacture and maintain. Big Oil DOES NOT want YOU to know that. 

And all this happens before EITHER the electric motor or the ICE leave the manufacturing plant! Next you've got an electric motor that is 70% efficient compared with an ICE that is 20% efficient.

Furthermore, the ICE CANNOT utilize BRAKING energy to recapture some of the energy expended during acceleration; the electric motor, because it is a GENERATOR as well, recaptures electricity during braking for more range and SIMULTANEOUSLY extends the life of the disk brakes.

Which leaves us with the  "battery or gasoline as energy storage" issue.

Which has more range and which is safer? Most ICE cars have more range now but the trade off is explosive gasoline tanks in a crash and air pollution. In addition, it's dangerous to have a large store of gasoline at your home for your ICE so you HAVE TO drive hundreds of miles a year just to get gasoline.

An EV can basically get electricity to recharge ANYWHERE there is an electrical outlet. Furthermore, battery manufacture and maintenece is NOT as horribly polluting as the refining, distribution and burning of gasoline.

What about crashes with a giant battery pack on board. Isn't that dangerous?

NOPE!                 

In December 2011, Nissan reported, as an indication of the Leaf safety performance, that none of the around two dozen Leafs that were destroyed during the March 2011 tsunami caught fire and their batteries remained intact.[101] As of December 2011, no fires after a crash have been reported in the U.S. associated with the Leaf or other plug-in electric cars available in the market.[102]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Leaf

So, even though I respect her credentials,  I am convinced that Gail Tverberg is biased in favor of fossil fuels and against renewables simply because she hasn't done an objective comparison of the two.

If she had NO CREDENTIALS, then I would chalk it up to ignorance. Sorry, she is NOT ignorant. She is an intelligent energy expert and an actuary; she is quite conscious and aware of what she is saying and why she is saying it.

The ICE infrastructure is FAR more polluting and energy intensive than an equivalent renewable energy infrastructure would be. The energy expended each and every year to manufacture ICEs is there for everyone to see but TOTALLY IGNORED by those, like Gail, that claim that manufacturing renewables is "too energy intensive and polluting".
And as to Renewables not being able to "self propagate" because they allegedly require a fossil fuel infrastructure, I say that  statement is downright embarrasing for an energy expert. Energy is ENERGY! It doesn't have a "name tag" on it that says it will "work" this way but not that way.

Gail knows darned good and well the USA CAN produce its 3 or 4 thousand TWh of annual electricity from renewables IF the infrastructure gets built. And several million EVs would FLATTEN the energy use to avoid costly spikes because the EVs would be either charging or functioning as storage at night for excess wind energy. Not to mention their availability as emergency POLLUTION FREE power plants after a power outage from a strong storm.

Where was she when nuclear power plants were being built to claim they would be too polluting?

Where is she TODAY when she talks easily about building a REFINERY (for God's sake!) in North Dakota if there is enough oil there? Oh, but she's there to warn us to be "careful" about the pollution from rare earth magnets used to build wind generators.

My conclusion is that Gail DOES NOT want the bread and butter of The Oil Drum people to VANISH because of the overwhelming superiority of clean renewable energy and low temperature operating electric motors and generators all over the planet. She's fighting for HER TEAM. She is NOT an objective party and has a VESTED INTEREST in defending fossil fuels.

If she claims otherwise, have her show her ENTIRE STOCK PORTFOLIO and IRA and all sources of income. If she refuses to do so, then you KNOW where she stands. Have a nice day.

Full disclosure. I have ZERO stocks of ANY kind and I'm retired FAA. I don't get a nickel from any Renewable energy company to write this or any fringe benefit or whatever. NOTHING - ZIP!

MY TEAM is the BIOSPHERE! I wish more energy experts would join it.

• Tweet

[agelbert]

This is an excerpt from EERE Network News, a weekly electronic newsletter

June 26, 2013

California, Washington Utilities Honored with 2013 Public Power Wind Award
The Energy Department on June 18 recognized utilities in California and Washington with the 2013 Public Power Wind award. Washington State's Snohomish County Public Utility District received the Member System award for its participation in the Wind Integration Forum, a joint initiative led by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council and the Bonneville Power Administration to address wind energy and hydroelectric generation in the region and the integration of these resources into the electric grid.

As part of the forum, Snohomish is one of two regional utilities to pilot a program that provides twice-an-hour scheduling of wind transmission—increased from the standard once-an-hour scheduling—to allow the grid operators to better respond to wind fluctuations. In addition, the Southern California Public Power Authority received the Joint Action Agency award for its use of innovative financing to aggregate more than 710 megawatts of installed wind capacity. By carefully structuring the power purchase agreements across five wind projects, Southern California secured energy prices for several participating municipal systems at substantially lower costs.

The Public Power Wind award was created in 2003 by the Energy Department's Wind Powering America initiative and the American Public Power Association (APPA) to recognize and encourage community-owned electric utilities that demonstrate outstanding leadership in advancing wind power in the United States. A panel of experts evaluate the award nominees for high-performing executive leadership, creative marketing approaches, innovative projects, and benefits to customers. The winners were announced at the APPA's annual conference in Nashville, Tennessee. See the Energy Department Progress Alert.

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/news_detail.cfm/news_id=19391

• Tweet

[agelbert]

Giant SA meat corporation flywheel

The Flywheel's Use in Eliminating Renewable Energy Intermittency

Flywheels have been used by humans as energy storing devices for over 1000 years.

In the Industrial Revolution, James Watt contributed to the development of the flywheel in the steam engine, and his contemporary James Pickard used a flywheel combined with a crank to transform reciprocating into rotary motion.

Three common uses of a flywheel include:

1) They provide continuous energy when the energy source is discontinuous. For example, flywheels are used in reciprocating engines because the energy source, torque from the engine, is intermittent.

2) They deliver energy at rates beyond the ability of a continuous energy source. This is achieved by collecting energy in the flywheel over time and then releasing the energy quickly, at rates that exceed the abilities of the energy source.

3) They control the orientation of a mechanical system. In such applications, the angular momentum of a flywheel is purposely transferred to a load when energy is transferred to or from the flywheel.

Table of energy storage traits
 
Flywheel purpose              Mass(kg)      Angular velocity(rpm)    Energy stored(kWh)      
Small battery                          100                   20,000                          2.7      
Regenerative braking in trains   3000              8,000                     9.1      
Electric power backup[7]       600                       30,000                    26.0   




Note that Flywheel uses "1)" and "2)"   are made to order for renewable power, particularly from wind powered generators.

One of the main complaints voiced about renewables is that they are intermittent. Well, GUESS WHAT? That ICE in your car is INTERMITTENT TOO! So much so that it has to have a flywheel to smooth the power from the ICE to the wheels.

In the Enroute Air Traffic Control Center where I worked long ago, we had a lot of electronic equipment that could not tolerate electrical energy fluctuations. In order to prevent damage when the commercial grid had voltage spikes, brown outs or outight failures, we had a large diesel emergency power plant. But that fiesel ICE could not start up fast enough to prevent a giant dip in the voltage and possible damage.


PVD with black track ball (instead of a mouse), the keyboard and quick look buttons I spent many hours working airplanes on.

Losing the radar picture when you are controlling several aircraft can be quite deadly to the flying public as well.  The old raw radar screens were not as sensitive to voltage spikes. the new PVDs (plan view displays) with vector graphics and digitized aircraft data blocks were very sensitive (and expensive to repair).

Consequently (and this was in the 1980s by the way) we had an Uninterruptible Power System installed. It was composed of a a current frequency and voltage sensing electronics package connected to a giant flywheel. This flywheel was slowly turning all the time. The moment commercial power got below (or above) the requirements of our electronics, the commercai power would be cut off while still being monitored as to quality.

The Flywheel would instantly provide ALL the juice needed to run the facility AND turn over the giant diesel auxilary power generator until it was running and providing electricity (about 50 seconds). The flywheel would then be shut down until such a time as the commercial power was of suitable quality.

Now with thousands of wind generators pumping electricity into the grid in a somewhat intermittent fashion as to voltage, the flywheel is becoming much more than a source of smoothed current for a minute or so.

Large Flywheels are being incorporated into grid scale wind energy in TWO ways:

1) As energy storage devices when power is greater than grid requirements.

2) Providing greater power in short bursts when an energy spike demand comes through the grid requiring more power than the wind is providing.

So, in effect, like the flywheel in an ICE, but on a much larger scale in both storage and available power, Renewable energy from the wind intermittency is becoming a thing of the past. 

We are not talkind a day of storage like a large battery bank provides BUT we ARE talking about at least a few hours of zero wind energy AND second by second current smoothing and voltage regulation. 

The flywheel's ability to do all this completely DESTROYS the fossil fuel people's argument that wind energy is too intermittent to be reliable.

Of course they knew this was a lie from the start. All fossil fuel reciprocating  (pistons moving back and forth in cyclinders) ICEs have flywheels for smoothing the INTERMITTENT power delivered by the series of explosions in the combustion chambers. The whole "intermittentcy of renewables" has been nothing but a half truth propaganda meme.

Now that's gone too. GOOD!

Remember, the next time you hear someone say renewables are "too intermittent",  you are being lied to.    

Beacon Power Emerges from Bankruptcy with New Energy Storage Project

Jeff Postelwait, Associate Editor, Electric Light & Power

June 26, 2013





Tulsa, OK -- Beacon Power LLC, a company that provides energy storage capacity based on grid-scale flywheel technology is installing flywheels and full-scale construction at a new 20 MW energy storage plant in Hazle Township, Pennsylvania.

The first 4 MW of energy storage capacity is scheduled to enter commercial operation in the PJM Interconnection grid system in September, with the full 20-MW plant operational during the 2nd quarter of 2014.

Beacon Power flywheel plants provide frequency regulation services by absorbing energy from the grid when there is too much and storing it as kinetic energy. In times of low energy on the grid, the flywheels cycle energy back onto the grid. These cycles can occur multiple times in time periods as short as one minute, making them responsive to the needs of power grid operators.

Full Story here:

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/06/beacon-power-emerges-from-bankruptcy-with-new-energy-storage-project?cmpid=rss

• Tweet

[Eddie]

I'm not surprised to see flywheels making a come-back. In the not too distant past their usefulness was well understood. I have wanted a Lister engine for years, and was mucho pissed off when TPTB decided it was a good idea to make them hard to get. ( They manufacture a lot of them in India, but they don't meet EPA regulations these days, which I believe is just a red herring excuse to keep them out, for the benefit of "approved" corporations like Honda.)

Yeah, I know it's an ICE, AG, but it's the best of them. Multi-fuel, low rpm, low fuel burn. At this point in time, no one who lives well off-grid does so without some type of fossil fuel fired generator. (Four Corners Interfaith runs ENTIRELY on generator power, for instance.)



Nowadays, some people sell the same product and call it an air compressor (technically, it will work for that). But if you turn it into an engine, you're an outlaw. This has made the old ones, which are grandfathered, very precious and hard to find (particularly in the southwest).

There's a guy in Abilene who has one for sale right now. Wish it was in my budget.

Steam engines (at least the old school ones), make use of big flywheels. I've seen a couple of nice ones on eBay lately.

• Tweet

[agelbert]

I understand perfectly. If, for example, we were all still riding 26 hp model Ts we would still be about 20 years from global warming and peak oil.

The laws and regulations are the cow shute we are forced through. In Vermont, you don't have to register a firearm but it is illegal to manufacture one at home.  I would never dream of engaging in such activities UNLESS I HAD NO OTHER CHOICE IN THE MATTER.  

As far as laws and regulations are concerned, I say, VOX POPULI, VOX DEI.

• Tweet

[agelbert]

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/auHJlWwwTKk#&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/auHJlWwwTKk#&fs=1</a>

The Future Could Not Be Clearer for Renewable Energy


Garvin Jabusch, Green Alpha Advisors 

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/05/the-future-could-not-be-clearer-for-renewable-energy


snippet

Renewable energies and sustainable practices can now credibly be said to have the power to increase our standards of living since they provide far greater benefits for far less cost than their economic predecessors. Moreover, since fossil fuels are demonstrably destructive - to the point that their use threatens our society and its ecological underpinnings - arguments that continuing to expand their use somehow minimizes economic risks are nonsense on their face. On the contrary, it’s now clear that failing to reduce use of fossil fuels is among the riskiest things we can do.

Let's go forward, not backwards -->

• Tweet

[agelbert]

Today I will tell you a sad, TRUE story that Big Oil has gone very far out of their way to make it nearly impossible for you to find out. 

When you see the numbers I am about to give you, your instinct, because you have been propagandized for decades to think that way, will be to reject the data as an exaggeration or a deliberate falsehood. The numbers are BONA FIDE, as you will see when you go to the link.

This is specifically about penetration of renewable energy into the electricity supply mix (not the entire energy use picture).

It all starts with Ronald Reagan's Administration. You see, Jimmy Carter was on the renewable energy band wagon. As a matter of fact, renewable energy was ON A ROLL by the time Carter left office. Big oil was not happy about that AT ALL so they counterattacked.

Is this a conspiracy theory? You be the judge. I'll just show you the energy use numbers and what percentage of our electrical energy was made up of renewables.

And, NO, Nicole Foss (stoneleigh) and Gail Tverberg, it was NOT a "drop in the bucket" way back in 1983.   

The U.S. generated a higher percentage of electricity with renewables in 1983, 14.1 percent, than it has anytime since in the past 30 years

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/05/penetration-of-renewable-energy-in-selected-markets?page=2

Imagine that! Back in 1983 we were getting OVER FOURTEEN PERCENT of our electrical energy from renewables.

WHAT HAPPENED?  Well, part of what happened is that out total energy consumption grew much faster than the renewable energy sector. Next to NOTHING for renewable energy subsidies, the continuation of fossil fuel subsidies and a coordinated massive price drop of fossil fuels MAY have had something to do with that, YA THINK?

Though total renewable generation has increased to more than 500 TWh in 2012 from less than 300 TWh in 1980, total generation has nearly doubled since then, increasing from 2,300 TWh to 4,100 TWh last year. Thus, until the growth of wind energy in 2009, the percentage of renewables in supply had been steadily decreasing since 1983.

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/05/penetration-of-renewable-energy-in-selected-markets?page=2

TODAY we have achieved a hair more than the renewable energy penetration we had in President Carter's last year in office!

The total penetration of renewables in 2011, despite news reports about the growth of wind and solar in absolute terms, only reached the same level of renewables in supply as was first achieved in 1980!

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/05/penetration-of-renewable-energy-in-selected-markets?page=2

The bottom line is that the whole renewable technology revolution was SABOTAGED by the fossil fuel pigs.

Now let us go forward to the present through two or three wars for oil and several, color coded, price shocks for no valid reason other than providing record profits for Big Oil and simultaneously impoverishing the American public.

So here we are in the year 2013. Are you ready for the truth about the VAST penetration that renewable energy has ALREADY achieved in some INDUSTRIALIZED countries?

Do you think you have a general idea of what the following countries have in renewable energy penetration of their total electrical production? I'll bet you are off by over 20 percentage points in most cases! That's how EFFECTIVE  the anti-renewables propaganda is in the USA.

The data used in this analysis was collected by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy: International Energy Statistics of Electricity Generation. EIA compiled the data from countries worldwide.

Here's the list from the article:

RE = RENEWABLE ENERGY                     TWh= Terawatt hours

ONE TWh = ONE BILLION Kilowatt hours

COUNTRY  POPULATION          RE         RE  TWh
Norway        5 million             100%        121
Iceland        320,000                97%         17
Portugal      10.6 million           37%          19
Denmark      5.6 million            45%         15
Italy             60 million            32%          92
Spain           47 million            30%          89
Germany     80 million             22%        127
France         66 million             16%          89
USA          313 million              13%        517
Britain        63 million              11%         36

                                             TOTAL RE 1,122 TWh

That is one whopping amount of energy considering the USA TOTAL electrical generation is 4,078 TWh.

NOTE:  Nuclear power is NOT considered or included in the renewable energy percentages or totals.

The Renewable Energy Revolution IS NOT GOING TO BE SABOTAGED BY LIARS FOR BIG OIL THIS TIME, if I have anything to say about it.

Do your part. Pass this on after reading the full, detailed article with graphs that separate non-hydro from hydro renewable energy. Send it to one of those "Energy Experts" that claim renewables are a "DROP IN THE BUCKET". Their response, or dead silence, might be entertaining and instructive.

We should have been over 75-100% penetration by now! Unfortunately, it may take another decade BUT WE'LL GET THERE THIS TIME!




Breakdown: Penetration of Renewable Energy in Selected Markets

Paul Gipe, Contributor

May 17, 2013

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/05/penetration-of-renewable-energy-in-selected-markets

• Tweet

[Ka]

Today I will tell you a sad, TRUE story that Big Oil has gone very far out of their way to make it nearly impossible for you to find out. 

When you see the numbers I am about to give you, your instinct, because you have been propagandized for decades to think that way, will be to reject the data as an exaggeration or a deliberate falsehood. The numbers are BONA FIDE, as you will see when you go to the link.

This is specifically about penetration of renewable energy into the electricity supply mix (not the entire energy use picture).

It all starts with Ronald Reagan's Administration. You see, Jimmy Carter was on the renewable energy band wagon. As a matter of fact, renewable energy was ON A ROLL by the time Carter left office. Big oil was not happy about that AT ALL so they counterattacked.

Is this a conspiracy theory? You be the judge. I'll just show you the energy use numbers and what percentage of our electrical energy was made up of renewables.

And, NO, Nicole Foss (stoneleigh) and Gail Tverberg, it was NOT a "drop in the bucket" way back in 1983.   

The U.S. generated a higher percentage of electricity with renewables in 1983, 14.1 percent, than it has anytime since in the past 30 years

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/05/penetration-of-renewable-energy-in-selected-markets?page=2

Imagine that! Back in 1983 we were getting OVER FOURTEEN PERCENT of our electrical energy from renewables.

WHAT HAPPENED?

Nothing happened. I don't find it at all remarkable that Hoover, Glen Canyon, Grand Coulee, Bonneville, TVA, etc. made up 14.1 percent of US electricity generation. All this means  is that by 1983 all the big dams on the big rivers had been built. From then on, it was just cheaper to add fossil-fueled electricity, especially with Alaska oil coming on-line, so the percentage went down. True, it was a dumb thing to do, as we are now experiencing the consequences, but it hardly needed an oil company conspiracy. Just the usual short-sightedness of everybody but a few who had assimilated Limits to Growth. This isn't to deny Carter's efforts. Just that they were insufficient to sway the body politic to sacrifice for future generations.

• Tweet

[WHD]

maybe for the kiddies, get them thinking right at a young age? Fear would tend to work well with them I suppose, certainly the climate change crowd is in at the public school at the 4th-5th grader level? This would slot right into that same "education" routine I imagine.

Hey MKing,

Yer a climate change denier too? So, like, species extinction isn't happening, or it just isn't a problem for you? Cutting down the Amazon to plant soybeans to feed Chinese forcibly moved into cites by the hundred million, doesn't have any effect on weather patterns? Burning 85 million barrels of oil a day, globally, is an ecological wash? 400ppm carbon in the atmosphere and climbing steadily, is what, a liberal hoax? Did abortion and tolerance for gay people cause the market to collapse in 2008, or was that because dirty Mexicans flooded the country with pot? Dragging your knuckles does not make dilbit replace sweet crude, but calloused bloody knuckles are good for building dilbit pipelines for TransCanada, I hear. That and writing copy for their Law Enforcement training, power point presentation, turning concerned citizens into "domestic terrorists", in the eyes of the Imperial Guard. I suppose you think NSA means Never Say Anything that isn't in support of BAU, TPTB, rape the planet, pollute EVERYTHING?

Or am I mistaken and you have a deep and abiding care and concern for the health of the planet you inhabit, and the people thereon? LOL. Put another "strawman" and "red herring" on my tab, please.

• Tweet

[agelbert]

Ka said,

Nothing happened. I don't find it at all remarkable that Hoover, Glen Canyon, Grand Coulee, Bonneville, TVA, etc. made up 14.1 percent of US electricity generation. All this means  is that by 1983 all the big dams on the big rivers had been built.

Please go back to article and look at the graph of US electrical penetration by NON-HYDRO renewables before you launch into generalizations of this nature. It's clear that you didn't. 

And by the way, those DAMS you are talking about were built DECADES before. Had they been the MAIN factor in renewable energy generation, the percentage of electrical use penetration by HYDRO renewable ALONE would have been HIGHER than the peak achieved in 1983 AS FAR BACK AS 1950! EACH YEAR after WWII the USA was consuming GREATER AND GREATER AMOUNTS OF ELECTRICITY. That TREND did NOT begin in 1983! 

From then on, it was just cheaper to add fossil-fueled electricity, especially with Alaska oil coming on-line, so the percentage went down.

You can make a somewhat plausible argument that the increase in supply of fossil fuels caused the price to drop and THAT is what killed renewables, not some conspiracy, but it would be a half-truth gyration based on ignorance of history and big oil tactics (See the Tyranny of Oil by Antonia Juhasz). 

True, it was a dumb thing to do, as we are now experiencing the consequences, but it hardly needed an oil company conspiracy.

Yes of course, Ka, the most profitable and ruthless corporations in the world, the fossil fuel fucks, JUST HAPPENED to benefit royally from our government's 180 degree turn on renewables. WHAT A FORTUNATE COINCIDENCE! Tough luck for renewables...

Just the usual short-sightedness of everybody but a few who had assimilated Limits to Growth. This isn't to deny Carter's efforts. Just that they were insufficient to sway the body politic to sacrifice for future generations.

The old IGNORANCE trick. Big Oil's most EFFECTIVE propaganda tool. I'm surprised an intelligent fellow like yourself continues to fall for it.  Oh, they just didn't know any better. And of course, KA, we are ALL AT FAULT now aren't we? It wasn't big oil busy bribing, bullying and preventing laws against tanker double hulls and environmental protection. Oh NO! No conspiracy here, FOLKS! Nothing to see. We just ALL "followed the path of least resistance". Jimmy Carter failed because, how is it you put it his influence was , "insufficient to sway the body politic to sacrifice for future generations".

Yeah, RIGHT. In our DEMOCRACY, the reason fossil fuels DESTROYED renewables in the 1980s is because of poor lobbying efforts. Uh HUH...

"Sacrifice for future generations!!?". Are you shitting me? The GIANT PROFIT FUNNEL that went into the seven sister's coffers enabled them to buy our fucking government and run a couple of wars for oil! We-the-people WERE sacrificed in the 1980s for big oil profits.

Anyone so ABYSMALLY NAIVE to believe it was all some supply and demand herd phenomenon that crushed renewables after KNOWING the horrendous wreckage on our POLITICAL SYSTEM that big oil wreaked, putting aside the pollution issue for a second, is avoiding reality and logic.

I know you WON'T, being the pride filled fellow that you are, but surprize me and just say OOPS! 

Remember, anything inaccurate you say about fossil fuels can and will be held against you by Agelbert. 

• Tweet

[jdwheeler42]

maybe for the kiddies, get them thinking right at a young age? Fear would tend to work well with them I suppose, certainly the climate change crowd is in at the public school at the 4th-5th grader level? This would slot right into that same "education" routine I imagine.

Hey MKing,

Yer a climate change denier too?

What a ridiculous question. What are you, some raging fundy who believes that your favorite voice in the sky created man 6000 years ago?

  You obviously don't know WHD from Adam if you think he is some raging fundy....

I, on the other hand, do believe that while man was not created 6000 years ago, humans were forced out of the Garden of Eden at that time after listening to the voice of Temptation saying that we could take without giving back, an event noted by historians as the beginning of civilization.

That mistake will be corrected soon.

• Tweet

[agelbert]

MKing,
I didn't make the video. Even though I agree with most of what is said there, the MAIN REASON I posted it was as a lead in to my post BECAUSE the video ends by saying Renewable Energy is the ONLY SOLUTION.

I think WHD zeroed in on on the main discomfort you have.

I am of the opinion, based on much study and observation, that we need to transition to MORE than 100% renewable energy.

Why? Because we need to run at 130 to 150 percent renewable energy for a century or so until we get back to an acceptable level of GREEN HOUSE GASES (the point at which the radiative energy output profile of the planet EQUALS the incoming radiation energy).

The extra energy will be used to turn CO2 into some benign substance like CaCo3 (Calcium Carbonate) or something like that. I am not going to go into dimethyl sulfide depletion from lack of seaweed from acidified oceans among several other DESPERATE climate situations we are in RIGHT NOW that cause biosphere damage. My STRONG FORTE is biology. I got into this energy CRAP because of all the lies and propaganda out there contributing to the DEATH of the biosphere.

Do you, or do you not believe global warming is an anthropogenic phenomenon?

If you do believe Homo SAP caused it, do you or do you not think transitioning to over 100% Renewable Energy is the ONLY SOLUTION?

And what about Big Oil's corrupt influence in destroying the Renewable Energy competition back in 1983? That was what my post was REALLY all about.

People need to understand that Big Oil HAS NOT GONE AWAY. Right now the PATHETIC $7,500 tax credit for buying a plug-in electric is

1) NON-REFUNDABLE (i.e. if your taxes are LESS than $7,500 you are limited to your total tax and cannot carry the credit to another tax year ).

2) TO BE PHASED OUT for EACH PLUG-IN MANUFACTURER after they have sold more than 200,000 vehicles.

Considering the FACT that MILLIONS of cars are made and sold each year, this is OBVIOUSLY a BULLSHIT BONE being tossed to EVs dooming them to rising prices as victims of their own success. And WHO THE FUCK pays $7,500 or more in TAXES that is middle class or poor? NOBODY!

Big Oil HASN'T GONE AWAY. The STILL WANT TO STRANGLE RENEWABLES.

As long as I have a voice, I will expose their perfidy.
   

• Tweet

[RE]

Can't say I sit around pondering the topic as much as you have, but even with minimal effort it wouldn't lead me to the ridiculous  false dichotomy you have assembled.

Translation:  Socrates is a Climate Change Denier.

I have a Socratic Interpretor Widget installed on my Laptop.

RE

• Tweet

[Ka]

Ka said,

Nothing happened. I don't find it at all remarkable that Hoover, Glen Canyon, Grand Coulee, Bonneville, TVA, etc. made up 14.1 percent of US electricity generation. All this means  is that by 1983 all the big dams on the big rivers had been built.

Please go back to article and look at the graph of US electrical penetration by NON-HYDRO renewables before you launch into generalizations of this nature. It's clear that you didn't. 

My remark was based on that graph. It shows in 1983 that total renewable percentage was 14.1, while non-hydro renewals is indistinguishable from zero from 1980 to 1988. What graph are you talking about?

And by the way, those DAMS you are talking about were built DECADES before. Had they been the MAIN factor in renewable energy generation, the percentage of electrical use penetration by HYDRO renewable ALONE would have been HIGHER than the peak achieved in 1983 AS FAR BACK AS 1950! EACH YEAR after WWII the USA was consuming GREATER AND GREATER AMOUNTS OF ELECTRICITY. That TREND did NOT begin in 1983! 

It was higher: 30% in 1950 according to this graph, with a pretty steady decline since to 14% in 1983  . Which all adds up to: nothing unusual happened in the early eighties. Until 1988, according to the graph in the article, non-hydro renewables were negligible in the US.

• Tweet