http://cleantechnica.com/2014/10/19/amer...city-2030/

Quote:A recent Union of Concerned Scientists (USC) study found that America can nearly quadruple its renewable electricity in the next 15 years, reaching 23% by 2030. This comes in response to the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal that America set a modest goal of 12% renewable energy by 2030. Rachel Cleetus, Senior Climate Economist of UCS, referred to the EPA’s goal as just a fraction above “business as usual.” The UCS found raising this target, to +23% of the nation’s electricity from non-hydro renewable sources by 2030, would cost the average household only about 18 cents per month. Cleetus described this as a realistic and affordable goal: “Looking at the way renewable energy is ramping up and costs are falling dramatically, there is a real opportunity to go farther.”

Much more detailed article. Just inserting first snippit.

The question remains, why bother?

"Union of Concerned Scientists (USC)"

Fail.

Well, good if we can do it, but that still leaves 77% that comes from elsewhere and that's a decade and a half out. Meanwhile coal mines are being shuttered all over and keystone sits on zerO's desk.

So where do we turn in the meantime? Russia perhaps?

(10-20-2014 04:13 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Well, good if we can do it, but that still leaves 77% that comes from elsewhere and that's a decade and a half out. Meanwhile coal mines are being shuttered all over and keystone sits on zerO's desk.

So where do we turn in the meantime? Russia perhaps?

Has No intentions of any relief on energy cost. The higher it costs the higher the Tax returns are to the Government.

I really wonder why anyone would consider 23%, 15 years out, as encouraging. And at what cost? $100 billion, $1 trillion, $10 trillion, more?

I think it should be pursued but without one single federal dollar. Let it stand or fall on the market.

(10-20-2014 04:45 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  I really wonder why anyone would consider 23%, 15 years out, as encouraging. And at what cost? $100 billion, $1 trillion, $10 trillion, more?

I think it should be pursued but without one single federal dollar. Let it stand or fall on the market.

Exactly.

And since jdt is some sort of self-proclaimed science whiz, why does he always miss points like that?

Did I ever insert an opinion?

Well that sounds good, it's definitely not good enough, yet. Obama and the rest of Washington needs to realize that we still need fossil fuels until there is the tech to completely get off that high. I'm all for weeding fossil fuels out, but lets not abandon them without a replacement that's ready to take over.

So we can quadruple renewables, which will still make up less than 25% of our supply. And that's our electricity supply, not our total energy supply. And by the way, this will reduce our need for oil by nary a drop. OK, to the extent we have electric cars powered by this electricity, maybe a little, but probably way, way less than 10%, very likely less than 5%, most likely around 2-3%.

This is the problem that I keep describing. Alternatives just aren't big enough for the size of the problem we face. That's not a reason not to do alternatives. Every little bit helps. But it is a little bit, and we need a lot more. So we have to do other things as well.

(10-21-2014 08:24 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  Did I ever insert an opinion?

Yes. This link is opinion from a reliably dishonest source.

(10-21-2014 10:55 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(10-21-2014 08:24 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  Did I ever insert an opinion?

Yes. This link is opinion from a reliably dishonest source.

The article cites the Union For Concerned Scientists. Of course it has a bias. It's still an interesting discussion piece.


So again, did I insert MY opinion yet?

(10-21-2014 11:05 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(10-21-2014 10:55 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(10-21-2014 08:24 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  Did I ever insert an opinion?

Yes. This link is opinion from a reliably dishonest source.

The article cites the Union For Concerned Scientists.

I love how losers repeat themselves as if that changes things.

Quote:Of course it has a bias. It's still an interesting discussion piece.

Not for anyone who knows anything about the subject.

Quote:So again, did I insert MY opinion yet?

Yes, your opinion is that nonsense is "interesting".

(10-20-2014 04:03 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  http://cleantechnica.com/2014/10/19/amer...city-2030/

Quote:A recent Union of Concerned Scientists (USC) study found that America can nearly quadruple its renewable electricity in the next 15 years, reaching 23% by 2030. This comes in response to the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal that America set a modest goal of 12% renewable energy by 2030. Rachel Cleetus, Senior Climate Economist of UCS, referred to the EPA’s goal as just a fraction above “business as usual.” The UCS found raising this target, to +23% of the nation’s electricity from non-hydro renewable sources by 2030, would cost the average household only about 18 cents per month. Cleetus described this as a realistic and affordable goal: “Looking at the way renewable energy is ramping up and costs are falling dramatically, there is a real opportunity to go farther.”

Much more detailed article. Just inserting first snippit.

I agree with some of the other posters about this. It should be entirely privatly funded. I think Waste to energy could be a good alternative. Granted it wont replace coal fired plants but it could supplement them. plus there are already two large companies that are in the market.

It would be a good way to solve two problems. Landfills and Energy.

Just my .02.

(10-21-2014 11:25 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(10-21-2014 11:05 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(10-21-2014 10:55 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(10-21-2014 08:24 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  Did I ever insert an opinion?

Yes. This link is opinion from a reliably dishonest source.

The article cites the Union For Concerned Scientists.

I love how losers repeat themselves as if that changes things.

Quote:Of course it has a bias. It's still an interesting discussion piece.

Not for anyone who knows anything about the subject.

Quote:So again, did I insert MY opinion yet?

Yes, your opinion is that nonsense is "interesting".

I was pointing out that citation as being a biased crappy one... but you're struggling today, I'll look beyond it. Stop trolling me. In fact, just stop opening my threads or responding to me. Not worth my time.

I have an acquaintance whom has written articles for that site in the past. Hangs out in a local saloon. Super nice guy, but borderline communist (and certainly a socialist). Has zero background when it comes to energy, clean or anything else. I find everything on that site to be very dubious.

The problem is ..... you probably don't want to. Even if the cost goes down a good chunk.

Renewable energy production worldwide offsets 270 megatons of carbon.

The United States cut carbon emissions 300 megatons just by switching from coal to fracking.

If you REALLY believe in global warming, and REALLY believe it is being driven mostly by man, and REALLY believe carbon is the culprit ..... you should be the biggest fracking fan ever.

(10-21-2014 12:03 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  you should be the biggest fracking fan ever.

When it comes to Southern Miss football, I'm the biggest frackin fan they have

(10-20-2014 04:13 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Well, good if we can do it, but that still leaves 77% that comes from elsewhere and that's a decade and a half out. Meanwhile coal mines are being shuttered all over and keystone sits on zerO's desk.

So where do we turn in the meantime? Russia perhaps?

Keystone is oil, 1% of the power generated in the US come from petroleum products.

Currently 7% of our power is from Hydro, 19% nuclear, Coal is 39%, NG 27%. Renewable is 6%.

http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3

Ideally we begin to lower that coal percentage. Coal plants are more expensive to build and operate than NG and wind and environmentally destructive. The majority of the coal power plants in the US are over 40 years old. These need to be decommissioned or transitioned to biomass or NG.

Updated Capital Cost Estimates for Electricity Generation Plants, gave an estimate for a new nuclear plant of US$ 5,339/kW and for onshore Wind $2,438/kW. Operating costs are also lower for the wind. A NG plant is still much cheaper to build and operate than any other plant. So with the NG estimated to be drilled via fracking this makes the most sense economically.

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/beck_plantcosts/index.html

Realistically in 15 years we would see 20% renewables, 20% nuclear, 5% hydro, 30% NG and 25% coal, with coal gone in 30 years.

(10-21-2014 12:53 PM)BobL Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 04:13 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Well, good if we can do it, but that still leaves 77% that comes from elsewhere and that's a decade and a half out. Meanwhile coal mines are being shuttered all over and keystone sits on zerO's desk.

So where do we turn in the meantime? Russia perhaps?

Keystone is oil, 1% of the power generated in the US come from petroleum products.

Currently 7% of our power is from Hydro, 19% nuclear, Coal is 39%, NG 27%. Renewable is 6%.

http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3

Ideally we begin to lower that coal percentage. Coal plants are more expensive to build and operate than NG and wind and environmentally destructive. The majority of the coal power plants in the US are over 40 years old. These need to be decommissioned or transitioned to biomass or NG.

Updated Capital Cost Estimates for Electricity Generation Plants, gave an estimate for a new nuclear plant of US$ 5,339/kW and for onshore Wind $2,438/kW. Operating costs are also lower for the wind. A NG plant is still much cheaper to build and operate than any other plant. So with the NG estimated to be drilled via fracking this makes the most sense economically.

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/beck_plantcosts/index.html

Realistically in 15 years we would see 20% renewables, 20% nuclear, 5% hydro, 30% NG and 25% coal, with coal gone in 30 years.

Wind's capacity factor is still only about 30% though (higher in some areas, lower in others), so despite it being cheaper per kW to build and operate, it is still a variable power source and until that changes, it will never be more than supplemental power. Same goes for solar.

Duke Energy just partnered with a couple other companies though to build a huge wind farm with compressed air storage out west though. The compressed air will be stored in underground salt caverns. It'll be interesting to see how effective this is.