With solar capacity up 577% since 2011 and wind energy surging, Trump’s pledges to abolish clean energy measures could have ‘major consequences’


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016...-reversals

There has been no dramatic progress as renewables still have the same limitations as they did in 2008 and still remain uncompetitive price wise. Never mind the backups wind and solar need to have.

"Trump’s victory, however, threatens this trend, with the president-elect promising to abolish the Clean Power Plan, cancel all federal money for clean energy development"

That sounds fantastic, actually. He's looking at all avenues to cut spending. And OH ALL THE TAXPAYER MONEY that has been completely wasted on numerous failed "green energy" initiatives. Besides, the author of this rag attempts to fear-monger the reader by saying OMG Trump is going to cut all renewable energy spending......then cites all these successful initiatives that have been implemented on the STATE LEVEL. The logical conclusion, obviously, is to leave this to the states since they apparently do a much better job than the federal retards who insist on wasting billions of our money.

Also, take a looksee at those "wind power" states. It's cute and all, but those states are sparsely populated and have the massive amounts of empty land required for the wind power backbones. Such measures wouldn't put a dent in the energy share of the East Coast megalopolis AND there's nowhere to put them. So the procurement and development of natural gas, coal, and oil is (and will remain) paramount in our country.

Obama clean energy loans leave taxpayers in $2.2 billion hole

Failure: Barack Obama Blew $150 Billion to Increase Renewable Energy Generation by 1%


The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:

Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($43 million)*
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.2 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
Abound Solar ($400 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Navistar ($39 million)
Satcon ($3 million)*
Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

http://dailysignal.com/2012/10/18/presid...-failures/

Yea, Obama has a great record of this country losing it's ass on his beloved clean energy. Would just be terrible to see Trump end all that progress.

Nuclear Power would have a MUCH larger impact on CO2 emissions than these green energy initiatives that rely on medieval era energy sources that have very low energy density...

(11-15-2016 08:34 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  With solar capacity up 577% since 2011 and wind energy surging, Trump’s pledges to abolish clean energy measures could have ‘major consequences’


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016...-reversals

It doesn't really matter mach. Economies of scale in the renewables industry have grown to the point that they won't be stopped.

No policy is stopping the decline of coal. Most coal plants in the U.S. are within 10 years of their operational lifespan. Maybe some of those will stay in operation beyond their intended life, but they're not going to be replaced with new coal plants. Coal will be completely phased out as an energy source in the U.S. by the middle of the 21st century.

(11-15-2016 09:24 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 08:34 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  With solar capacity up 577% since 2011 and wind energy surging, Trump’s pledges to abolish clean energy measures could have ‘major consequences’


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016...-reversals

It doesn't really matter mach. Economies of scale in the renewables industry have grown to the point that they won't be stopped.

No policy is stopping the decline of coal. Most coal plants in the U.S. are within 10 years of their operational lifespan. Maybe some of those will stay in operation beyond their intended life, but they're not going to be replaced with new coal plants. Coal will be completely phased out as an energy source in the U.S. by the middle of the 21st century.

The US has a 500 year supply of coal. It will be here a long time.

Natural gas is the future.

How much has the country saved going from 4.00 gasoline to 2.00 gasoline. That drop didn't happen overnight and the ramp back up will take awhile but only the most partisan won't see the effect all of these alternative fuels going online.

Biodigestors have been absolutely huge. Entire companies fleets of trucks have switched over to CNG.

http://www.quasarenergygroup.com/

You won't see Quasar on any failed renewable list. All with stimulus money and it's a game changer.

Stop murdering birds with those dam windmills.

(11-15-2016 09:30 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Natural gas is the future.

The short term future. It's a good transitional power source.

The true future is fusion. It's decades if not 100 years away from being commercial viable most likely, but China did have a big break through this month. They kept a fusion reaction contained and active for a full minute. I believe it was 10x the temperature of the sun's core.

(11-15-2016 08:34 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  With solar capacity up 577% since 2011 and wind energy surging, Trump’s pledges to abolish clean energy measures could have ‘major consequences’


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016...-reversals

Wow. We shouldn't vote for Trump then.

The people of West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio have spoken. We need more coal.

Clean, renewable energy is the future. I am in that electrical construction/manufacturing industry, the power generation has re-structured in a way that there is no avoiding solar/wind in the future.

However, the technology is not there yet to make it a viable alternative to fossil fuels. Private industry needs to invest in developing the technology further. The government has propped the industry up long enough that it can probably survive on its own.

Water/Dams are another renewable source of power, but we've about maxed out our ability to build them, and the technology is old (but reliable).

Coal is still the cheapest method of producing power, Natural Gas is second cheapest, then nuclear.

We should use clean coal (yes, the process does exist despite what Greenpeace says), natural gas, as well as nuclear to bridge the gap until solar/wind become legitimate sources of power production.

(11-15-2016 08:34 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  With solar capacity up 577% since 2011 and wind energy surging, Trump’s pledges to abolish clean energy measures could have ‘major consequences’


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016...-reversals

What is this obsession with Solar?

sometimes numbers lie..

Up "577%" sounds really impressive until you consider it's currently 0.5% of energy in the US. Solar is nothing more than a show at this point.



Solar needs to get down under 15 cents per KWH on the small scale before it would be costs competitive on the large scale.

There is also the issue of energy storage which needs to be addressed. The wind usually blows a bit at night. The sun's not shining any night and even a "super moon" won't give you energy.

And the days in December tend to be at or under seven hours in the northern US.

If that 'dramatic' progress comes at the expense of jobs or economic reality, then it really isn't progress since it can't be sustained. It is supposed to be a jump start, which by definition has a large initial boost, but then reality and economics must catch up, and often that means the progress takes a step backwards before continuing the economically unsustainable initial trajectory.

Maybe not econ 101, but certainly Econ 401

Compounding this is that coal jobs are in PA and WV while Solar jobs are in AZ and CA. How are you going to efficiently transport those jobs west and that energy east?

Maybe those Democrat voting, liberal Silicon Valley tech companies could invest some of their massive bankroll into clean energy.

But instead, we get Snapchat.

(11-15-2016 09:34 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Entire companies fleets of trucks have switched over to CNG.

I've posted before how CNG would be my first priority as an alternative energy source.

The pros: technology is proven and available; almost unlimited availability of NG; low pollution quotient; high efficiency

The cons: chicken/egg syndrome

The chicken/egg is very simple. Right now there are few available refilling stations. Fleet vehicles all return to a central hub daily, so refilling isn't a problem. While home units are available (they are expensive and time consuming) having a broad network of refilling stations is absolutely necessary before people will invest in a CNG car. But until there is a critical mass of numbers of vehicles, no one wants to invest in refilling pumps.

I'd rather see all the credits for electric cars be redirected to filling stations for the installation of CNG pumps.

(11-15-2016 11:19 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  If that 'dramatic' progress comes at the expense of jobs or economic reality, then it really isn't progress since it can't be sustained. It is supposed to be a jump start, which by definition has a large initial boost, but then reality and economics must catch up, and often that means the progress takes a step backwards before continuing the economically unsustainable initial trajectory.

Maybe not econ 101, but certainly Econ 401

Compounding this is that coal jobs are in PA and WV while Solar jobs are in AZ and CA. How are you going to efficiently transport those jobs west and that energy east?

SolarCity is currently comlpeting their main manufacturing facility in Buffalo.

Link

Google used to invest but had sobering findings in 2011. Article here.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/...ble-energy

btw last year was the first year we were over 400 ppm of CO2 for the entire year since the Pliocene.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pliocene-snapshot.html