Skip to content

What next for shale?

December 2, 2016

“In August 2015, Saudi Arabia declared war on shale oil development in the United States.”

“In October 2016, Saudi Arabia capitulated.” Quote from, Saudi Arabia Capitulates.

This has now been confirmed by an agreement among OPEC producers to cut production by 1.2 million barrels per day. Whether the cut ever actually materializes is immaterial: U.S. shale oil producers will be off and running in 2017.

The number of U.S. oil shale drilling rigs, at the end of November, had increased by 154 since the low point in May 2016.

The number of DUCs (Drilled but Not Completed) is currently around 3,800, not counting 900 natural gas DUCs.

The stage is set for rapid growth of shale oil production in the United States.

Initially, it could be unexpectedly rapid, and capped only by the surge in oil production forcing the price of oil lower.

We are likely to enter a period where U.S. shale oil production dictates the price of oil.

When the price of oil drops, due to an increase in supply caused by U.S. producers, U.S. producers will back off completions, and increase the number of DUCs. When the price of oil increases, U.S. producers will once again aggressively complete the DUCs and resume drilling.

This cycle could dictate the price of oil on world markets for many years in the future.

Much will depend, however, on growth in demand. If environmental activists succeed in getting governments to restrict the use of fossil fuels, demand growth could slow.

COP 21 established a program for cutting CO2 emissions that could result in the use of less energy.

The United States can reject this scenario of energy deprivation that harms people around the world, and lead the world to increased use of low-cost energy.

Low-cost energy over the past century has resulted in worldwide benefits, and the United States could provide the leadership for another century of improving economic growth and improved living standards around the world.

Natural gas from shale could also change the world markets for natural gas, and improve the availability of low-cost electricity for millions of people.

Diagram of fracking operation. Diagram source not known.

Diagram of fracking operation. Diagram source not known.

The shale revolution originated in the United States, and will spread to other countries over the next decades.

OPEC’s grip on the oil market has been broken, and the world will benefit from low-cost energy as a result of this revolution, assuming a belligerent Iran or terrorist action doesn’t upset this equation.

OPEC is still relevant, but it seeks oil price stability within a range of prices it can live with.

* * * * * *

Nothing to Fear, Chapter 15, An Alternative Hypothesis, describes why the sun is the far more likely cause of global warming..

Nothing to Fear is available from Amazon and some independent book sellers.

Link to Amazon: http://amzn.to/1miBhXy

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

* * * * * *

NOTE:

It’s easy to subscribe to articles by Donn Dears.

Go to the photo on the right side of the article where it says email subscription. Click and enter your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

If you know people who would be interested in these articles please send them a link to the article and suggest they also subscribe.

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2016. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

COP 21 Carbon Cutting Absurdity, Part 2 of 3

November 29, 2016

As shown in Part 1, it’s impossible for the world to cut CO2 emissions enough to prevent a climate disaster, but could the United States cut its CO2 emissions 80% by 2050?

US ratified UNFCCC treaty in 1992. UNFCCC held Conference of the Parties (COP) 21 and is leading the efforts to cut CO2 emissions.

US ratified UNFCCC treaty in 1992.
UNFCCC held Conference of the Parties (COP) 21 and is leading the efforts to cut CO2 emissions.

As seen in Part 1, electricity generation and gasoline usage produced 59%, or nearly two-thirds of CO2 emissions in the United States in 2004.

These CO2 emissions must be cut 80% from 1990 levels if there is to be any possibility of cutting total U.S. CO2 emissions 80% by 2050, as required by Obama and the EPA.

The percentage of U.S. electricity generation, and related CO2 emissions in Million Metric Tons (MMT) for each source in 2014, are:

Coal = 33%, CO2 = 1,364 MMT
Natural gas = 33%, CO2 = 530 MMT
Nuclear = 20%
Hydropower = 6%
Other renewables = 7%
Oil 1%, CO2 = 24 MMT

Cutting CO2 emissions 80% from 1990 levels requires that total CO2 emissions from electricity generation in 2050 not exceed 364 MMT.

CCS (carbon capture and sequestration) is not a viable option for continuing the use of fossil fuels. See, The Why and How of Carbon Capture and Sequestration.

Without CCS, all coal-fired power plants and one-third of all existing natural gas power plants must be shut down if CO2 emissions are to be kept below 364 MMT.

Wind and solar as replacements

There are two fundamental scientific reasons why wind and solar can’t replace the coal-fired and natural gas power plants that must be closed.

  • Wind and solar don’t generate electricity when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine.
  • Solar doesn’t generate electricity during nighttime hours.

Currently, there are 1,068,422 MW of installed capacity of all types.

This amount of capacity must be available at all times to provide electricity during periods of peak load.

But 441,704 MW of this capacity, or 41%, is eliminated when all coal-fired and 1/3 of Natural Gas power plants are shut down, so there won’t be sufficient capacity to respond to peak loads.

Therefore, if wind and solar are used to replace the lost capacity, the remaining installed capacity would be insufficient to meet peak demand when the wind stopped blowing or the sun didn’t shine.

This alone means that wind and solar can’t replace the lost baseload power that’s needed to be available at all times, 24/7, for when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine.

The only theoretical possibility for using wind and solar to replace coal-fired and natural gas power plants that have been closed, would be to install storage essentially equal to the lost capacity.

Unfortunately, there is no type of storage currently available that can store this amount of electricity across all of the United States. See, Storage is Essential for Wind and Solar.

In addition, there are economic reasons why wind and solar can’t be economically used to replace coal-fired and natural gas power plants.

  • The cost of building, at $2,000 per KW, the approximately 434,137 new wind turbines, rated 2 MW, needed to replace the lost coal-fired and natural gas units would be $1.7 trillion. (Using offshore wind would cost twice this amount.)
  • The cost for using PV solar at $3,000 per KW would be around $2.5 trillion while concentrating solar, at around $5,000 per KW, would cost over $4 trillion.
  • The cost of constructing new transmission lines to transport the power from remote areas to where it can be used must be added to the investment in new wind and solar capacity. This investment in new transmission lines could easily exceed $200 billion, based on the Joint Coordinated System Plan (JCSP’08).

Replacing coal-fired and natural gas power plants with nuclear would allow a transition where CO2 emissions could be cut 80%. But, the public has been conditioned to believe nuclear power is dangerous, so there is little likelihood that very many new nuclear power plants will be built. In fact, it’s very probable there will be less nuclear power available in 2050 than there is today.

Even if nuclear were acceptable, it would require building 442 new nuclear plants rated 1,000 MW each by 2050, which would be virtually impossible. Currently, there are about 100 nuclear power plants in the U.S.

Conclusion:

It is impossible to eliminate all coal-fired power plants and 1/3 of natural gas power plants by 2050, without destroying America’s standard of living by forcing Americans to accept huge reductions in the use of electricity, such as for air-conditioning, appliances, communications, WiFi, TV, etc., and without crippling American industry.

Part 3, in the next week or two*, will explore whether gasoline can be cut 80% by 2050.

  • Change.

* * * * * *

Additional information:

Nothing to Fear is available from Amazon and some independent book sellers.

Link to Amazon: http://amzn.to/1miBhXy

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

* * * * * *

It’s easy to subscribe to articles by Donn Dears.

Go to the photo on the right side of the article where it says email subscription. Click and enter your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

If you know people who would be interested in these articles please send them a link to the article and suggest they also subscribe.

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2016. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content

COP 21 Carbon Cutting Absurdity, Part 1 of 3

November 18, 2016

The COP 21 agreement is absurd, and is likely to become a tragedy for mankind if actually implemented.

The COP 21 agreement is based on the premiss that CO2 emissions must be cut 50% worldwide by 2050 or there will be a climate catastrophe. This, in turn, is based on the assumption that atmospheric CO2 must be kept below 450 ppm. Atmospheric CO2 is currently 400 ppm.

Computer models predict that temperatures could rise as much as 8 degrees F if these last 50 ppm are allowed to happen.

The assumption has also been that developed countries, including the United States, must cut their CO2 emissions by 80%, so that undeveloped countries, including China and India, can continue to increase their CO2 emissions, although at a slower rate.

But, are these basic assumptions valid?

Table 1

Country CO 2 emissions (MMT) Per capita emissions (Tons) % of Total World
World 35,270
China 10,300 7.4 29.2%
United States 5,300 16.6 15.0%
EU28 3,400 6.8 9.6%
India 2,500 1.9 7.1%
Russia 1,800 12.6 5.1%
Japan 1,400 10.7 4.0%
70.0%
  • Estimates for 2014

Table 1 from Nothing to Fear

These 6 countries account for 70% of CO2 emissions worldwide.

Realistically, only two sources of CO2 emissions are relevant to any attempt to cut CO2 emissions.

They are:

  • Gasoline
  • Generation of electricity

Industrial causes are too diverse for effective action. They include cement production, natural gas for heat treating and heating, etc.

Table 2

U.S. CO2 Emissions 2004

Source MMT % Total
Electric Generation 2298.6 39%
Gasoline 1162.6 20%
Industrial 1069.3 18%
Transportation (Excluding Gasoline) 771.1 13%
Residential 374.7 6%
Commercial 228.8 4%
United States Total 5905.1 100%
  • Total excludes approximately 70 MMT of CO2 emissions from miscellaneous sources.
  • Source: Emission of Greenhouse Gasses in the United States 2005 by DOE Energy Information Administration.
  • MMT = Million Metric Tons

Table 2 from Nothing to Fear

While Table 2 is for the United States, both Europe and Russia have similar distributions of CO2 emissions, while China and India, the two largest developing countries, have more emissions from the generation of electricity than from gasoline usage.

Is the COP 21 agreement realistic, or a farce?

How will it be possible to cut CO2 emissions 80% from the generation of electricity and the usage of gasoline?

But before examining how the United States can cut its CO2 emissions 80% by 2050, one has to wonder whether such a herculean effort would have any effect on the world’s ability to prevent the climate catastrophe predicted by the UNFCCC and IPCC, which is the basis for the COP 21 agreement?

What are the facts?

  1. China and India already emit more CO2 than does the United States, Europe, Russia and Japan combined.
  2. China and India are developing countries that will be allowed to increase their CO2 emissions.
  3. The UN has said the world must cut total CO2 emissions 50% by 2050, which means, referring to Table 1, cutting CO2 emissions by 17,635 MMT.
  4. Assuming the United States, Europe, Russia and Japan cut their CO2 emissions 80%, it would amount to only 9,520 MMT, nowhere near the 17,635 MMT needed for the world to prevent a climate catastrophe.
  5. The remaining developing countries that produce 30% of the world’s CO2 emissions are mostly struggling to survive, with countries in Africa and many in Asia barely at subsistence levels, and mostly, with the exception of oil producing countries and S. Korea, unable to cut CO2 emissions by any amount.

No amount of speech making by 10,000 attendees in Marrakesh, at the UN COP 22 climate change conference the week of November 6, will change these facts.

From UNFCCC web site

From UNFCCC web site

The only conclusion that can be reached is that it is impossible for the world to cut CO2 emissions enough to prevent a climate catastrophe.

On this basis, COP 21 is worse than a farce, it is a tragedy.

(The next articles will examine whether the United States can cut its CO2 emissions 80% by 2050 as demanded by Obama and the EPA.)

* * * * * *

Nothing to Fear is available from Amazon and some independent book sellers.

Link to Amazon: http://amzn.to/1miBhXy

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

* * * * * *

NOTE:

It’s easy to subscribe to articles by Donn Dears.

Go to the photo on the right side of the article where it says email subscription. Click and enter your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

If you know people who would be interested in these articles please send them a link to the article and suggest they also subscribe.

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2016. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Coal and the Unreachable Climate Goal

November 15, 2016

While the Obama administration continues to promote its war on coal, and fossil fuels in general, coal usage worldwide continues at a brisk pace.

While silly movies, like Before the Flood, promote COP 21 goals, the world continues to favor the use of coal for generating electricity.

Wind and solar grab the headlines, but coal does the job.

It can be said, with little contradiction, that it is impossible to cut CO2 emissions enough to prevent the forthcoming climate disaster, assuming CO2 is the cause of global warming.

One must wonder why the United States should destroy its economy and the standard of living of Americans, when its impossible to prevent the onrushing climate disaster, if CO2 is the cause of global warming.

Bloomberg promotes the COP 21 agenda, yet it also recognizes that coal usage will continue to grow.

Growth of coal in Asia, (right graph) Courtesy of Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF)

Growth of coal in Asia, (right graph) Courtesy of Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF)

In recent years, China has been building two coal-fired power plants per week, but now forecasts a reduction.

The reduction? Build one, rather than two, coal-fired power plants each week.

Japan is pushing to build more coal-fired power plants to replace the nuclear power that has been sidelined after the Fukushima disaster caused by a tidal wave.

This chart from the EIA shows that CO2 emissions from developing countries will overwhelm the puny reductions in CO2 emissions from Europe, the US and other developed countries.

The growth in coal usage in developing countries is the major contributor to the growth in CO2 emissions.

CO2 projections from EIA

CO2 projections from EIA

Europe, with its massive, costly push to cut CO2 emissions, has achieved very little in the way of reducing CO2 emissions.

Coal will remain a significant share of energy usage by 2040, regardless of all the COP 21 efforts to kill coal.

The Obama administration and the EPA demand that the United States cut its CO2 emissions 80% by 2050, but this is obviously not enough to stop the growth in worldwide CO2 emissions.

To achieve an 80% reduction, Americans would have to cut their per capita CO2 emissions from 16.6 tons per person today, to 2.3 tons by 2050.

Cutting CO2 emissions 80% is virtually impossible to do, but even if it were technically possible, it would destroy America’s standard of living.

Quoting, Bloomberg New Energy Finance founder Michael Liebreich:

“The [Japanese] utilities are seeing how difficult it is to restart the nuclear power stations after Fukushima, so they’ve decided to build coal.”
And,

“If Asia keeps building coal-fired power stations, then there is no way of sticking within a carbon budget consistent with 2 degrees,”

Efforts by the EPA to cut the use of coal and natural gas are harming Americans, with no possible benefit.

Atmospheric CO2 will continue to rise well past the magical 400 ppm, where there will be, according to DiCaprio, Gore and Obama, a climate catastrophe.

Attempting to cut CO2 emissions is a dangerous delusion, and the next few articles will explain why.

* * * * * *

Nothing to Fear, Chapter 14, explains why it’s impossible to cut CO2 emissions 80%.

Nothing to Fear is available from Amazon and some independent book sellers.

Link to Amazon: http://amzn.to/1miBhXy

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

* * * * * *

NOTE:

It’s easy to subscribe to articles by Donn Dears.

Go to the photo on the right side of the article where it says email subscription. Click and enter your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

If you know people who would be interested in these articles please send them a link to the article and suggest they also subscribe.

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2016. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

CO2 Wizardry or Hype?

November 11, 2016

The headlines read:

“Scientists accidentally discover a method to turn carbon dioxide Into ethanol.”

And,

“CO2 may help renewables industry.”

While stories in the media read:

“The [CO2 to Ethanol] process could be used to store excess electricity generated [by] wind and solar. … It could help balance a grid supplied by intermittent renewable sources.”

And, more dramatically:

“This low-cost electrochemical reaction may come to the rescue of the earth’s climate.”

Photo from ORNL, catalyst of copper nanoparticles embedded in carbon nanospikes.

Photo from ORNL, catalyst of copper nanoparticles embedded in carbon nanospikes.

While most people would applaud being able to dispose of unwanted CO2, this wizardry, from DOE’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory, may just be hype.

First, there is the scientific fact that the process requires more energy to produce ethanol from CO2, than is in the ethanol that’s produced. The energy input is greater than the energy output. (This is the same basic problem with fusion.)

We have not yet discovered perpetual motion. Electricity is required to produce ethanol from CO2, and the process only has a yield of 63%.

Unless the source of electricity doesn’t use fossil fuels or the electricity would otherwise be wasted, the process would ultimately add CO2 to the atmosphere. (I.e., generating electricity for the process produces more CO2 than would be absorbed by the ethanol.)

For example, if wind turbines generate electricity that cannot be used on the grid, this electricity could be used to produce ethanol and remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

But this is a very limited case, since selling the electricity to the grid has a greater economic value than using the electricity to produce ethanol. Excess electricity from wind energy usually only happens at night when the grid is lightly loaded and represents a small fraction of the electricity produced by wind turbines.

Rephrasing the issue:

Why build wind turbines and solar farms to generate electricity to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, when they could, theoretically, be used to displace the electricity generated by fossil fuel power plants and prevent the CO2 emissions in the first place?

Amazingly, if the foregoing isn’t sufficient to demonstrate that the media headlines are hype, the scientific paper describing the process contained the following conclusion:

“The process probably precludes economic viability for this catalyst.” And,

“The entire reaction mechanism has not yet been elucidated.”

This discovery does nothing to change the fact that wind and solar are unreliable, or intermittent. Neither wind nor solar generate the electricity required for the reaction when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine: I.e., no electricity, no ethanol.

Summary

The media created the impression that a process was accidentally discovered that could remove CO2 from the atmosphere and “come to the rescue of the earth’s climate” while also mitigating the intermittent problems associated with wind and solar.

Both propositions are false.

It’s merely media hype.

 

* * * * * *

Nothing to Fear, Chapter 6, Wind Energy, explains why wind energy is expensive and unreliable.

Nothing to Fear is available from Amazon and some independent book sellers.

Link to Amazon: http://amzn.to/1miBhXy

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

* * * * * *

NOTE:

It’s easy to subscribe to articles by Donn Dears.

Go to the photo on the right side of the article where it says email subscription. Click and enter your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

If you know people who would be interested in these articles please send them a link to the article and suggest they also subscribe.

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2016. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Blackouts? Who Would Have Thought?

November 4, 2016

Suddenly, alarm bells are ringing that the grid may be in trouble, with the possibility of blackouts.

While many energy observers, including me, have been warning about the impact of wind and solar for years, it’s only now that some pundits are beginning to realize there is a problem.

It’s been obvious for years, and even the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) prepared a curve showing how renewables were eating into baseload power generation.

CAISO Duck Curve

CAISO Duck Curve

Solar and wind force baseload plants offline during the day, and then require baseload plants to rapidly come back on line and ramp up their output when the sun goes down. This deprives baseload plants of revenue, and then damages the equipment with thermal and other stresses when the equipment is forced to rapidly increase output when the sun sets.

Germany has become the poster child for what happens when wind and solar are added to the grid.

  • Electricity rates zoom higher, i.e., 3 – 4 times higher than the average US rate. See Europe’s High Cost of Renewables.
  • The need for added transmission lines is either ignored, or their costs are ignored when evaluating the cost of wind and solar.
  • Storage becomes urgently needed, which is either not technically feasible or its costs are ignored when evaluating the cost of wind and solar.

Power Magazine called the emerging grid reliability problems, “An alarming trend” and said:

This baseload exodus could have a worrying impact on reliability, as shown by summer planning reserve margin projections (%) from the North American Reliability Corp.’s 2015 Long-Term Reliability Assessment.” (Emphasis added)

Power Magazine blames the emerging threat on low natural gas prices, and:

“State and federal rules, and market design issues.”

But, they fail to explain the “state and federal rules and market design issues” which are at the core of why wind and solar are displacing baseload power.

Low-cost natural gas does affect nuclear power plants, but it does not affect coal-fired or natural gas power plants that are being forced from the grid.

Coal-fired power plants are, of course, the plants most affected by “state and federal rules, and market design issues.”

Interestingly, natural gas power plants can’t compete in Germany because the price of natural gas is too high. It’s the market rules that are forcing the main German utilities E.ON and RWI to shed their fossil fuel assets or go bankrupt. See, Germany’s Failing Energiewend, Part 1.

Wind and solar operators bid their electricity after taking the wind and solar credits, i.e, subsidies, which allows them to sell electricity at artificially low prices. The result? No baseload power plant can compete against subsidized electricity. Subsidized wind farms have even paid the grid operator to get the grid to use wind generated electricity so the wind farm operator could get paid the 2.3 cent per kWh tax credit.

When the market rules say that wind and solar must be dispatched first, it precludes baseload power generation from competing.

And now, the administration’s Clean Power Plan (CPP) will make a bad situation worse.

As made clear by Power magazine, with its unwillingness to explain “state and federal regulations and market design” issues, the fix is in to blame the problem on the low-cost of natural gas. Yet, it’s not low-cost natural gas that’s causing the problems in Germany, because natural gas in Europe costs two to three times as much as in the United States.

For the first time, an industry publication has raised alarm bells about the possibility of blackouts because of the way the market is being rigged against the use of fossil fuels.

* * * * * *

Nothing to Fear, Chapter 9, The Utility Death Spiral, explains why displacing fossil fuels with wind and solar will result in the bankruptcy of Utilities.

Nothing to Fear is available from Amazon and some independent book sellers.

Link to Amazon: http://amzn.to/1miBhXy

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

* * * * * *

NOTE:

It’s easy to subscribe to articles by Donn Dears.

Go to the photo on the right side of the article where it says email subscription. Click and enter your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

If you know people who would be interested in these articles please send them a link to the article and suggest they also subscribe.

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2016. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Subsidies for Making Ice

November 1, 2016

Unsatisfied with the billions of dollars spent on wind and solar subsidies, the environmental movement now wants subsidies for products that store energy.

Matt Roberts, executive director of the Energy Storage Association, said:

“It would be a good economic investment for us as a government and as a nation to invest in advancing these [storage] technologies.”

A bill has been introduced in the U.S. Senate by Senator Martin Heinrich (D-New Mexico) that would allow “thermal energy storage and regenerative fuel cells” to qualify for the 30% investment tax credit that solar installations already receive.

Thermal storage includes making ice.

Ice is used to provide cooling to augment air-conditioning equipment. Simply make ice at night when electricity is cheap, then use the ice to cool the air in offices or homes during hot afternoons.

Proponents of subsidies for making ice say this would avoid using electricity during periods of high demand, and reduce CO2 emissions.

Diagram Courtesy of Ice Energy Corporation

Diagram Courtesy of Ice Energy Corporation

Many corporations would benefit from these subsidies: Trane, Ice Energy, Evapco, CALMAC, to name some. And ice storage is being promoted by the media, such as NPR, Treehugger. com, Greentech Media and New York Times.

The storage subsidy would also apply to batteries used to store electricity. Batteries that are installed in conjunction with a solar system, such as a PV rooftop solar system, already qualify for the 30% subsidy, but new laws would allow all batteries used for storing electricity, as part of an energy storage system on the grid, to qualify for the 30% subsidy.

The hubris of environmentalists is staggering.

Wind and solar generate expensive and unreliable electricity.

Wind and solar cannot generate electricity when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow, so grid operators can’t rely on electricity being available when it’s needed.

For wind and solar to be usable 24/7, they must be augmented with storage.

For example, the new Crescent Dunes, Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) plant uses storage so that it might be able to provide expensive electricity 24/7. See, New Concentrating Solar Plant.

One supplier of battery storage claims battery storage should be credited twice: First for storing electricity, then again when the electricity is released.

AES Energy Storage President Chris Shelton said that a storage facility performs two functions:

“First it absorbs energy, and then it discharges energy.”

See, Storage Double Speak.

Hopefully, battery storage won’t qualify for a 60% subsidy: 30% for absorbing energy, and another 30% for discharging it.

It’s a simple matter to ridicule these ideas, but subsidies being paid for with taxpayer dollars are tragic. Subsidies absorb funds that should be used for building needed infrastructure, or worse, they increase the national debt.

But, don’t fossil fuels get larger subsidies?

All subsidies are probably bad, but this widely circulated myth distorts the truth. See, The Big Untruth.

In addition to the cost of subsidies, electricity generated by wind and solar is already expensive, two to four times more expensive than electricity generated by natural gas, and it will be even more expensive when the cost of storage is added.

* * * * * *

Nothing to Fear, Chapter 11, Role of Taxpayer Funded Subsidies, busts the myth that fossil fuels receive greater subsidies than renewables.

Nothing to Fear is available from Amazon and some independent book sellers.

Link to Amazon: http://amzn.to/1miBhXy

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

* * * * * *

NOTE:

It’s easy to subscribe to articles by Donn Dears.

Go to the photo on the right side of the article where it says email subscription. Click and enter your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

If you know people who would be interested in these articles please send them a link to the article and suggest they also subscribe.

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2016. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.