The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread

[sys]

so, investment in solar power generation is outpacing investment in fossil fuel-based power generation because of a glut of fossil fuels in the market?


that's an interesting analysis, dax.  good job looking behind the glib storyline the media was force-feeding you to uncover the real scoop.

[sonofdaxjones]

so, investment in solar power generation is outpacing investment in fossil fuel-based power generation because of a glut of fossil fuels in the market?


that's an interesting analysis, dax.  good job looking behind the glib storyline the media was force-feeding you to uncover the real scoop.

We're talking about two different things.   Did you actually read the entire article and why did you use the word "crushing" if you can't understand the context of what I said?

Stunningly weird posting by sys. 

[sonofdaxjones]

One reason is that renewable energy is becoming ever cheaper to produce. Recent solar and wind auctions in Mexico and Morocco ended with winning bids from companies that promised to produce electricity at the cheapest rate, from any source, anywhere in the world, said Michael Liebreich, chairman of the advisory board for Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF). 

Probably the most interesting quote from the article

I predict they'll either go broke or need a substantial amount of supplemental investment and they're going to kill a gazzillion birds in the production process. 

[EMAWican]

Has anyone mentioned Renewable Portfolio Standards for utilities and how much of an impact they have? Because it's in the billions and billions of dollars. That's a big reason why renewables are "crushing" fossil fuels.

[star seed 7]

LOVE when dax, of all people, calls someone vague or cryptic 

[sys]

So inefficient green energy production is "crushing" fossil fuels?  That's where I started to tune out that idiotic article. 

Lol, it couldn't be that the world is awash in oil, and the market has realized that so called "peak oil" is now not even on the distant radar screen?

so, investment in solar power generation is outpacing investment in fossil fuel-based power generation because of a glut of fossil fuels in the market?

We're talking about two different things.

in that case, please explain what you were talking about.

[sonofdaxjones]

The article implied that it was alternative energy that was hurting the oil price and I say it has more to do with the oil glut.   I was discussing the trend line on gov't support of alt energy vs traditional months ago.   Just thought that was understood at this point.   

[sys]

It would have been nice to have clarification on if subsidies were involved in the "cheapest rate" portion.

the rates are what they've contracted to sell their electricty at.  they don't typically disclose their costs of production.  however, you can be sure that those projects are taking full advantage of the tax credit.

[sys]

The article implied that it was alternative energy that was hurting the oil price and I say it has more to do with the oil glut.

no it didn't.  in fact, even though the main thrust of the article is not about the oil market, it specifically mentioned in passing that the oil market was not currently impacted by renewable energy prices.  they did state that it may be marginally impacted in the future.

[sonofdaxjones]

Not my take, but oh well.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Solar and wind are not viable without tax subsidies. That's a fact nobody disagrees upon. When you consider government mandates to purchase x% of energy from "clean" sources, the capex is practically mandatory.

 o&g capex is a fraction of what it was two years ago because the commodity is 70% less. O&g gets the opposite treatment from government as wind solar, it pays the highest effective tax rate, is punished with trivial environmental regulations, and there are c&d orders on fracking based upon anecdotes and a public hoax that it regularly contaminates groundwater, b.o. even wants to levy a $10 per barrel tax to send more money to wind and solar.

The playing field couldn't be any more uneven.

The article was really stupid, deliberately misleading and uninformitive, which is par for the course for that publication. Anyone who reads it is doomed to be misinformed and is probably really stupid anyways.

[bucket]

How was it misleading?

[sys]

Solar and wind are not viable without tax subsidies. That's a fact nobody disagrees upon.

not true.

o&g capex is a fraction of what it was two years ago because the commodity is 70% less.

the article discussed investment in electrical generation facilities, not investment in petroleum exploration and production.

[sonofdaxjones]

What planet is sys on?

[bucket]

You're making no sense, what does the "crushing" comment even mean?  That gov't is subsidizing inefficient "clean" energy production more then legacy energy production?  If so, another captain obvious point.

Please explain why you're against this subsidy. Why are you against investing in technology and innovation? Why are you against investing in the future power grid ? Why are you against a technology that can/will create manufacturing jobs? I thought that this country was about innovation.

Gas and oil are finite. I believe that in my lifetime we're going to have to embrace renewables. Do you disagree with this? Why shouldn't America be at the forefront of this. Isn't that why we're the best country in the world? Being ahead of the curve.

[ednksu]

You're making no sense, what does the "crushing" comment even mean?  That gov't is subsidizing inefficient "clean" energy production more then legacy energy production?  If so, another captain obvious point.

Please explain why you're against this subsidy. Why are you against investing in technology and innovation? Why are you against investing in the future power grid ? Why are you against a technology that can/will create manufacturing jobs? I thought that this country was about innovation.

Gas and oil are finite. I believe that in my lifetime we're going to have to embrace renewables. Do you disagree with this? Why shouldn't America be at the forefront of this. Isn't that why we're the best country in the world? Being ahead of the curve.

What blows my mind is that fundamentally these guys are against progress to the determent of humanity. 

I'm they're right and we pushed renewables the worst case scenarios is that we have a renewable energy source, no dependency on the most unstable part of the world, less poverty here after at most 25 years of energy poverty Dax strawmans, staving off the worst parts of climate change, and a new era where conflict can be avoided.

If progressive thinking people are right and we stick with non-renewables our worst case scenario is that we damage the planet beyond repair, cause more wars on a global scale as resources dwindle, and push humanity towards the brink of extinction.

[The Big Train]

Have we talked about the melting permafrost in and around the Arctic circle?  It contains like 3X the carbon and methane that are currently in the atmosphere.  By 2100 it should be mostly melted and raise emissions by like 300%

[The Big Train]

http://gizmodo.com/we-finally-know-why-the-north-pole-is-moving-east-1769588584

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Stop calling tax subsidies "investments" you retards.

[slobber]

http://gizmodo.com/we-finally-know-why-the-north-pole-is-moving-east-1769588584

That is pretty amazing.

Smart ass response: have you been to NC, you'd move east, too!

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

How was it misleading?

Tell me what you think it was about, and I'll tell you why that isn't true.

[bucket]

Stop calling tax subsidies "investments" you retards.

http://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2015/09/14/why-renewable-energy-still-needs-subsidies/

If renewable energy is getting so cheap, why do we still need policies and subsidies to support it?

Here’s why. Even if they’re now, finally, cost-competitive at the point of sale, low-carbon technologies are still working with an infrastructure—a utility regulatory system, a power grid, a highway system, a combustion engine-centric fueling system—built for a world powered by fossil fuels. These massive infrastructure projects were built up with public-sector support, including tax credits, low-cost loans, and outright grants from the federal government.

Companies designing new energy sources, in contrast, often have to build their own infrastructure and factor it into their costs. Take electric vehicles, for instance, which at the moment have a battery life that requires frequent charging on long trips, but which operate in a world of gas stations serving conventional vehicles. This mismatch of technology and infrastructure requires either significantly more R&D investment into electric vehicles to extend their battery life, or promotion of EV charging stations that will allow for these cars to compete on the open road.

Investment is required

[bucket]

How was it misleading?

Tell me what you think it was about, and I'll tell you why that isn't true.

You can't even answer the question.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

 

[wetwillie]

I'm considering a wind turbine for my home.  Seems like a no brainier.