Krugman on Solar and Wind Power

[Triathlete]

Krugman, an MIT professor, Nobel Prize winner, and internationally renowned economist writes in his twice-weekly column an article on alternative power.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/01/opinion/wind-sun-and-fire.html?ref=international


News in Nevada, however, is not so good for the clean energy industry where the fossil fuel industry, big money, and Republican-corporate puppets undermine the future of solar energy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/01/opinion/nevadas-solar-bait-and-switch.html?ref=international

[Dave Sparks]

There are also quite a few in Nevada with common sense, still. If you do not agree with what goes on in your state get involved.
Try going for a couple weeks without air conditioning in the desert and you may see why the utility needs to make a profit.
Go offgrid and then you will be on your own

[Triathlete]

There are also quite a few in Nevada with common sense, still. If you do not agree with what goes on in your state get involved.
Try going for a couple weeks without air conditioning in the desert and you may see why the utility needs to make a profit.
Go offgrid and then you will be on your own

Did you read the Nevada article?  It's about collusion and corruption between Brian Sandoval, a Republican who is in the pay and the fossil fuel industry who stand to benefit by burning the solar industry to the ground.  How would you suggest that people get involved so that they are effective?

No where in the article did it suggest that the utility should not make a profit, nor is anyone suggesting that fossil fuels should be turned-off over-night.  Furthermore, these systems in question are not stand-alone.  They are grid-tied, and as the article points out they're generating almost all of their electricity themselves.  The future is clean energy and there will be a day when fossil fuels will be a distant memory.  We have to work toward that end, not against it.

[OlJarhead]

To be fair, Krugman is a left wing hack...

[Triathlete]

To be fair, Krugman is a left wing hack...

Ad hominem attacks are confirmation of who won the argument.   

Btw, Krugman is not left-wing.  He openly supports Hillary, who is mainstream bought and paid for by the conglomerates and represents the establishment, and not Sanders.

[OlJarhead]

Hillary anything but left?  I guess I have no idea what left and right mean anymore.  But Krugman is a hack.

[OlJarhead]

Ad hominem attacks are confirmation of who won the argument.   

Btw, Krugman is not left-wing.  He openly supports Hillary, who is mainstream bought and paid for by the conglomerates and represents the establishment, and not Sanders.

By the way, I see the left and the right both have their bought and paid for pols and while I cringe a little more when someone way out left field is the rage, I still cringe when someone out in right field does too

Not like a real constitutional libertarian is ever going to make it far enough to matter me thinks.

[Stein]

Furthermore, these systems in question are not stand-alone.  They are grid-tied, and as the article points out they're generating almost all of their electricity themselves. 

That's part of the problem.  They have the convenience and cost of being grid-tied but don't pay anything for that convenience and cost.

[MountainDon]

I agree that solar PV energy is an important source. However, if the individual system / home / business is to be connected to the grid they do need to contribute to the maintenance of the grid.  If anyone has issues with paying for the privilege of having the convenience of being grid tied they need to investigate the costs they will incur if they divorce the grid and install their own energy storage.

[azgreg]

I agree that solar PV energy is an important source. However, if the individual system / home / business is to be connected to the grid they do need to contribute to the maintenance of the grid.  If anyone has issues with paying for the privilege of having the convenience of being grid tied they need to investigate the costs they will incur if they divorce the grid and install their own energy storage.

I agree. However, SRP here in the Phoenix area just bumped that surcharge $50 a month to be connected while they still screw around with what they are going to do about net metering.

[flyingvan]

As a Republican Corporate Puppet, I want to point out a few things
1) Solar panels have a finite lifespan and suffer from an annual degradation that isn't always amortized out over the life of the system.

2) Solar panels are made of some pretty toxic stuff, and the recycling of spent panels isn't going to come cheap

3) Solar panels are cost effective for people way off the grid; otherwise they require subsidies.  They global warming scare tactics aren't going to work forever (unless it actually warms up), oil is cheap, and humans are opportunistic.

    When solar is truly the cheapest way to go, people will utilize it.  It shouldn't require a subsidy or taxes on fossil fuels to artificially stack the deck.  We aren't there yet but the technology is improving

[Tickhill]

There has not been a dime's worth of difference between the elephants and the jackasses in many years. Some have their wind/solar subsidies and others have their ethanol and yet others have soybean/cotton but they all have their donors, some small, some large. Its been good cop/bad cop.

Krugman did state it correctly, I think, that Rubio is the establishment candidate. It is plain to see why Trump and Cruz are the targets. Trump answers to no one at this time and Cruz's actions as far as doing what he says he will do convicts all the others of their inaction to represent their constituents.

How long will it take to recover from the last 4 presidents, no one knows. Depending on how much the grass roots votes, we may not even recover, it will truly be buckle up for the ride.
We must remember, we may suffer some but our children and grandchildren will bear the brunt of the last 28 years of us sitting on our assets and enjoying the fat of the land.
Vote early, vote often. 

[Stein]

Only somewhat aligned with this thread, my local utility has instituted a new minimum charge starting this year.  Designed to be revenue neutral for the "average" $100/mo user it really hits the low users hard.  My little cabin is on grid and I rarely use 25kw per month. 


    June 1, 2016, the service charge for residential customers will go from $10.25 to $15 (down from the $18 charge originally proposed). The usage charge will decrease by five percent (down from nine percent).
    Jan. 1, 2017, the service charge will increase to $20 (down from the $25 charge originally proposed). The usage charge will decrease by 11 percent (down from 16 percent).
    Jan. 1, 2018, the service charge will increase to $25 (down from the $30 charge originally proposed). The usage charge will decrease by 16 percent (down from 22 percent).
    Jan. 1, 2019, the service charge will increase to $30 (down from the $35 charge originally proposed). The usage charge will decrease by 22 percent (down from 28 percent).

( copied and pasted from their press release)
http://www.oppd.com/NEWS-RESOURCES/NEWS-RELEASES/2015/DECEMBER/OPPD-BOARD-APPROVES-RATE-RESTRUCTURING-PLAN-2016-BUDGET

[MountainDon]

The proposed new rate structure from our POCO will also affect low users more than high users. The POCO stats show that overall per capita use is falling so they make less profits on the sale of the power. Our base meter rate will increase from $5 to $12 to $13. But they gave up on asking for a special connection fee to be applied to grid tie solar customers.  For now.

[NathanS]

Despite his epaulets, I'm not a fan of Krugman. He's the same as the rest of the political pundits.

The energy solution is to consume less, not produce more or produce different. Everyone acts so alarmed by what is happening, but the 'revolution' stops as soon as even a modest lifestyle change would be required.

I love these 'net zero' houses with elevators in them.

People like Krugman say the world is ending, and they want to 'save' it by signing a piece of paper. Feels good man. 

[OlJarhead]

Despite his epaulets, I'm not a fan of Krugman. He's the same as the rest of the political pundits.

The energy solution is to consume less, not produce more or produce different. Everyone acts so alarmed by what is happening, but the 'revolution' stops as soon as even a modest lifestyle change would be required.

I love these 'net zero' houses with elevators in them.

People like Krugman say the world is ending, and they want to 'save' it by signing a piece of paper. Feels good man. 

or by taxing the rich to feed the poor....it's easy to spend other peoples money top save the world from false gods, er false climate science....I wonder what they will do if the  new age 'little ice age is coming' folks are right! LOL  wait, I already know!  Tax people to save them from the global cooling!  After all, it's worked so well so far....

[flyingvan]

   I think if you open a thread with terms like "Republican-corporate puppets" you open the door to Ad Hominem attacks.  If you are a supporter of solar energy, great! Put in some solar panels.  If global warming is your thing, go ahead and act on it---just don't insist everyone believes exactly the same things you believe.  Many of us have been around long enough to see these same weather cycles first hand, and have lived through enough 'sky is falling' hype to know this planet is pretty darned stable and has balancing mechanisms way beyond Al Gore's level of understanding.  Sure, we need to be good stewards, but every last carbon atom that makes up the hydrocarbons we utilized were once in the atmosphere before, and temporarily putting them back is part of a macrocycle.
   In my memory---Global warming (caused by industrialization) Global cooling (again, industrialization) Hole on the ozone layer, too late to stop (it was there the first time they looked, never didn't see it) Acid rain..The dire prediction never come true and all this 'green' energy isn't without its own impacts and problems.  I agree the real key is using less energy, not fretting over the method of production

[midrover170]

or by taxing the rich to feed the poor....it's easy to spend other peoples money top save the world from false gods, er false climate science....I wonder what they will do if the  new age 'little ice age is coming' folks are right! LOL  wait, I already know!  Tax people to save them from the global cooling!  After all, it's worked so well so far....

[flyingvan]

 

   We have a forest of these 'bird blenders' on the desert side of Incapa.  They are noisy, and the cost per kilowatt hour approaches infinity when the wind dies down.
http://www.cfact.org/2015/03/10/solar-power-propaganda-vs-the-real-world/

    Imagine if even 10% of Obama's 'stimulus' money had been spent streamlining hydrocarbon production and awarding grants for cleaner emissions.  Green energy is hurting industry (a major goal, I often think).  Foolish, because a vibrant capitalist environment gives rise to the innovations and breakthroughs we are all hoping for in energy production. 
    I firmly believe a true free market would bring clean energy breakthroughs to market faster than government mandates and selective subsidies with quid pro quo implications.   Everyone wants cleaner power and will go there as soon as it's cheap and reliable.

[Bob S.]

I read that it takes more oil to produce ethanol fuel ( grow-make the alcohol-and transport )  than it saves by making us burn 10% in our gas tanks at a reduced efficiency. My car's mileage went from 32 MPG to 28 MPG with the 10% ethanol fuel.
Bob

[cbc58]

not a fan of Krugman...    govt. needs to shrink and get out of our lives.

it's easy to spend other peoples money to save the world from false gods, er false climate science... 

got to come up with something new to keep the status quo going.   amazing how many buy into it.

[flyingvan]

Well put.  Too many have stepped up to the altar of Global Warming.  Supporters struggle with providing proof, instead offer dire consequences and rants about corporate greed.  There's common ground to be found, though---does anyone disagree that we need to stop doing all we can to adapt our environment to our needs, and instead adapt to our environment?  People are opportunistic, and right now we're swimming in cheap oil, coal and natural gas.   Put some money into more environmentally friendly production, refining, and utilization instead of following this myth of green energy.  Support a vibrant economy that facilitates new innovation and technology that will make some real energy breakthroughs that will replace hydrocarbons.   Broaden your range of temperature comfort levels (Really, we can survive if our homes are somewhere between 50 and 85 degrees) end our addiction to light pollution.  Spend more time outdoors.

[Dave Sparks]

Well put.  Too many have stepped up to the altar of Global Warming.  Supporters struggle with providing proof, instead offer dire consequences and rants about corporate greed.  There's common ground to be found, though---does anyone disagree that we need to stop doing all we can to adapt our environment to our needs, and instead adapt to our environment?  People are opportunistic, and right now we're swimming in cheap oil, coal and natural gas.   Put some money into more environmentally friendly production, refining, and utilization instead of following this myth of green energy.  Support a vibrant economy that facilitates new innovation and technology that will make some real energy breakthroughs that will replace hydrocarbons.   Broaden your range of temperature comfort levels (Really, we can survive if our homes are somewhere between 50 and 85 degrees) end our addiction to light pollution.  Spend more time outdoors.

Well said !  And while outdoors at night, keep looking for the little green men.  They may have some answers for wackos we are swimming with.

[kenhill]

I went to the University of Buffalo where they stored and analyzed ice cores from Greenland.  They looked at the chemical composition of the gases trapped in the ice.  Carbon Dioxide has been increasing dramatically (240 ppm average for 650,000 years to 300ppm in 1950 to 400ppm now) since man has started adding his burning to natural causes.  Whether you believe in global warming or not, I would be concerned for the future on the dramatic change we have made in the atmosphere.  Also, being a conservative,  I believe in conservation, waste reduction(saving money), reusing.  We have th resources to do better and for future generations, I would rather not depend on luck that doubling the CO2 has no effect.

[flyingvan]

  Let's go back a little further...Looks like at one time we were at 7,000 ppm, more than 17 times where we're at now.  I think it's more likely that when the natural temperature cycle warms things up, the CO2 levels rise.  The 100ppm rise in atmospheric CO2 could be due to many factors, human burning of things being just one.  Further, there is no proof that a rise in CO2 would be a bad thing.  Nature knows what to do with CO2 and depends greatly on it. 
  With oceans and plants producing about 210 gigatons of CO2 annually, and all human sources adding up to a measly 8 gigatons, and estimates that half of the man made stuff is taken up by nature nearly immediately, it's hard to picture why a source responsible for 3.8% of the CO2 is responsible for a doubling of the PPM.