Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on December 26, 2016
2016 was the year solar panels finally became cheaper than fossil fuels. Just wait for 2017
The renewable energy future will arrive when installing a new solar panels is cheaper than a comparable investment in coal, natural gas or other options. If you ask the World Economic Forum (WEF), the day has arrived.
Solar and wind is now the same price or cheaper than fossil fuels in more than 30 countries, the WEF reported in December (pdf). As prices for solar and wind power continue their precipitous fall, two-thirds of all nations will reach the point known as “grid parity” within a few years, even without subsidies. “Renewable energy has reached a tipping point,” Michael Drexler, who leads infrastructure and development investing at the WEF, said in a statement. “It is not only a commercially viable option, but an outright compelling investment opportunity with long-term, stable, inflation-protected returns.”
Those numbers are already translating into vast new acres of silicon and glass. In 2016, utilities added 9.5 gigawatts (GW) of photovoltaic capacity to the US grid, making solar the top fuel source for the first time in a calendar year, according to the US Energy Information Administration’s estimates. The US added about 125 solar panels every minute in 2016, about double the pace last year, reports the Solar Energy Industry Association.
The solar story is even more impressive after accounting for new distributed solar on homes and business (rather than just those built for utilities), which pushed the total installed capacity to 11.2 GW.
But global global investment in renewable energy still lags far behind levels needed to avoid potentially catastrophic global warming, according to the United Nations. Global renewable investment last year was $286 billion, or 25% of the $1 trillion goal set by nations at the Paris climate change accord. Barriers to investment are mostly political rather than economic: Contracts are not standardized, regulatory uncertainty remains, and financial institutions have not created an asset class with a public, standardized track record that will reassure mainstream investors, reports the WEF (pdf, p 12).
But prices are eventually expected to win the day. Solar is projected to fall to half the price of electricity from coal or natural gas within a decade or two. That milestone has already been reached in some locales. In August, energy firm Solarpack contracted to sell solar electricity in Chile at just $29.1 per megwatt hour, 58% below prices from a new natural gas plant.
58 Comments on "2016 was the year solar panels finally became cheaper than fossil fuels. Just wait for 2017"
makati1 on Mon, 26th Dec 2016 7:29 am
9.5 gigawatts = ~ 00.01% of total world electric production. At that rate, it will only take about 1,000 years to replace the existing system. LMAO
“Once upon a time…”
.5mt on Mon, 26th Dec 2016 8:21 am
Raise the subsidies (no kooks, depreciation expense is not a subsidy) and it will be even cheaper. Subsidize enough and it will be nearly free.
Davy on Mon, 26th Dec 2016 8:33 am
Is this a valid statement “cheaper than”? Are we dealing with hype and a message that is just false? Should we be basing our decisions on price? Is the market the proper mechanism for “value” discovery? This article is talking tipping points but it is clear this is not a real tipping point. It is hope mixed with an agenda. Saying we have a tipping point when we don’t is going to influence our decision making process in the wrong way. We know solar is nowhere near a tipping point. We know the challenges ahead are daunting for multiple reasons beyond what any technology can battle.
We need to focus on why we need solar more and not just solar is cheaper. We need to be honest about climate change and renewables. Can we have a renewable civilization and save the climate? What will be the cost of a buildout of alternatives? We are close to many dangerous minimum existential operating levels of stability for civilization. If we make the wrong investments now they could cause more harm than good later. The wrong investment can be the right investment that is invested poorly. We no longer have the luxury of destructive change that is beneficial innovation because we no longer have the safety of surpluses to accommodate this activity. We can no longer make decisions that are experiments and necessarily survive the consequences. We are dancing near a cliff so caution is the name of the game for survival.
When we mix hype with emotions to sell a macro shift for society we risk mal-investment. Can climate change be contained? Science is telling us we have breached thresholds with runaway negative feedbacks. With that understanding how can we use solar to mitigate climate change? Maybe solar should be looked at for what its best potential is and that is sustainability and resilience not a solution. If we use “the solution” as the reason for investment we are going to invest differently and maybe unwisely. Saying we must go 100% alternatives to save our civilization is going to influence investments differently than saying lets strengthen society for what is ahead.
I am of the opinion any alternative investment now for whatever reason is vital and important even if it is for the wrong reasons. That said there is a point where this is surely not true. It also is wrong at the level of the truth and our social narrative. We must be very careful to avoid using false narratives to achieve good results. The results of this is deception and deception at any level is corruption. Corruption is destructive. Corruption kills civilizations and this is always the case. We must have honesty at the highest levels for us to make the proper decisions.
We all know this higher level of sapience is not possible in today’s world. What is the next best solution to a narrative of the ends justify the means? I would say we have to have critical thinking with sobriety to establish limits to this hype. This alternative hype is good at this point now with so little invested in alternatives and so much needed. Alternatives are vital for sustainability and resilience but they are likely not going to save us. We are not going to save ourselves using the same tactics that got us to where we are. We are not going to break out of this trap with knowledge and technology alone. We are only going to manage this trap we got ourselves in by wisdom of good decisions going forward. We need something to limit our decisions of hype and good intension that may be a wrong means. Somewhere at some point we have to have restraint or we will never break out of the circular behavior of more knowledge and technology because that is accepted as better. It might be better to degrowth with policies of less as a better strategy to combat the dangerous progress of climate change and depletion. We would still use fossil fuels because using them is less dirty than building out a new but still status quo civilization on renewables. I don’t have that answer but it must be discussed somewhere at some level.
What is happening now is a blind dash for a magic solution for something that cannot be fixed. These type of exercises leave mistakes at a minimum and complete failure at the worst. Now is the time to critically ask if civilization can be reformed by other means. If it can’t then do we make the best of what we have for the maximum benefit for maximum amount of people. These are the type of questions you can’t price. They don’t even fit into society’s narrative of more with less and increased knowledge and technology is best. Less is more is not a valid message for society even though this may be the case. I am not naïve to think this is our best option but it may be reality. Reality is the truth and getting closer to the truth has a special value over and above all other values. In this sense let’s ask the questions and at least make an honest commentary. We can do this and say it has no place in modern society except as an obscure nugget of wisdom to refer to at some point. It could be a priceless contribution to the truth and may at some point be drawn on to guide future decisions.
dave thompson on Mon, 26th Dec 2016 9:00 am
Solar panels do not work at night when one needs to turn on the lights. How do solar panels store electricity at scale when the sun don’t shine?
Cloggie on Mon, 26th Dec 2016 9:36 am
Last year bought 6 large solar panels for 3000 euro all in, incl. installation, inverter and connecting to grid. No subsidies whatsoever.
Electricity yield over exactly one year: 1450 kwh (or 30 buckets (10 liter) of oil)
Yearly consumption: 1550 kwh
So I’m almost self-sufficient.
“Income” electricity with current Dutch electricity prices of 23 euro cent: 330 euro.
In other words: in 9 years time these panels will have paid themselves back and I will still have 21 year electricity “for free”. According to this calculation, PV is much cheaper than fossil electricity.
This calculation is not entirely correct though, since there is (yet) no tax involved with PV electricity, as the government wants to stimulate PV. When taxes will be introduced, several years will be “eaten away” from those 21 years.
[part 1]
Cloggie on Mon, 26th Dec 2016 9:37 am
One thing is certain though: I most likely paid (a large chunk of) the electricity bill for the rest of my life in advance.
Solar panels do not work at night when one needs to turn on the lights. How do solar panels store electricity at scale when the sun don’t shine?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsSUPpwtqhQ
Norway, Europe’s battery pack.
All North Sea countries are constructing high-voltage cables between their country and Norway for this purpose. The oldest one was between Holland and Norway:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NorNed
[part 2]
P.S. post can’t be posted in 1 part because of this captcha baloney
Dredd on Mon, 26th Dec 2016 9:51 am
The photo does not show PV, it shows solar thermal.
List of solar thermal power stations>/a>
They can use molten salt storage “batteries” to continue generating electricity when the Sun is not shining (e.g. Andasol Solar Power Station).
Dredd on Mon, 26th Dec 2016 9:54 am
“The U.S. Army is developing a 1.5 MW system at the Tooele Army Depot in Utah with 429 Stirling engine solar dishes. The system is scheduled to be fully operational in 2017” (Solar thermal power systems).
shortonoil on Mon, 26th Dec 2016 10:11 am
We wonder if they took into consideration the fact that solar panels are going down in price because oil is going down in price. It takes oil to make solar panels. It takes oil to produce anything, including oil.
If they did, they didn’t mention it?
http://www.thehillsgroup.org/
GregT on Mon, 26th Dec 2016 10:25 am
“Last year bought 6 large solar panels for 3000 euro all in, incl. installation, inverter and connecting to grid. No subsidies whatsoever.”
Right Cloggie. You’re being subsidized by the grid. When a large enough percentage of people install grid tied systems, that subsidy will no longer be provided. Sounds like your electricity supplier is betting on ~2020, or in about 3 years.
Boat on Mon, 26th Dec 2016 11:01 am
Davy,
I have read that 40 percent of renewables can run on a large grid without to many intermittent problems. Grids with available nat gas plants that can be ramped up and down that percentage goes up. As mak loves to point out renewables are only a small portion of the mix.
As the price of renewables continue to drop areas with good sun and wind will grow at a accelerated rate until they run into storage and intermittent choke points In my view this problem happens at least a couple decades down the road. How low can electricity be produced by renewables in a couple decades Will determine their potential.
GregT on Mon, 26th Dec 2016 11:08 am
Boat,
As long as you continue to refer to alternate fossil fuels manufactiured, supplied, and maintained systems as renewable, you will continue to be completely full of shit. Solar PV and wind turbine systems are not renewable, and neither is the infrastructure used to transmit that electricity, or the gadgets that run off of it.
Full, of, shit.
Apneaman on Mon, 26th Dec 2016 11:20 am
Not helping.
Daily CO2
December 24, 2016: 404.63 ppm
December 24, 2015: 402.31 ppm
November CO2
November 2016: 403.64 ppm
November 2015: 400.24 ppm
https://www.co2.earth/
Boat on Mon, 26th Dec 2016 11:24 am
greggiet,
Lol, keep up with the world. Renewables is the normal accepted term. We don’t live in your world, you live in ours. Blame the deep state. Better yet go to the praying wall in Israel, bow down and state and your case. Isn’t that where all control comes from? Hehe
GregT on Mon, 26th Dec 2016 11:36 am
“Renewables is the normal accepted term.”
Human beings are not overly smart Boat. They tend to regurgitate the pablum fed to them. You are a prime example of one of the more dumbed down ones.
Glad I don’t live in your world. Baaah!
Boat on Mon, 26th Dec 2016 11:36 am
Gasoline is still under $2.00. Happy holidays. The Eia will have final numbers for 2016 soon. I expect lower Co2 numbers even though btu use will be up. The trend is going in the right direction. WTG USA. Will Trump deal with immigration. Could this be the beginning of US degrowth. We can only hope.
Cloggie on Mon, 26th Dec 2016 11:40 am
You’re being subsidized by the grid.
Am I? My panels produced 1450 kwh this year. Over 30 years that would be 30 * 1450 = 43500 kwh. Let’s correct that for panel degradation (80% output after 30 years) with a factor of 0.9, so total yield would be 39150 kwh. Or over 3000 euro 7.7 euro cent per kwh. If you take into calculation 2 replaced inverters over 30 years for 400 euro per piece (it could be 1 or 3 inverters, there is a wide variance in inverter life span from 5-15 years), it would be 3800 euro or 9.7 euro cent / kwh (still ignoring storage). That’s pretty cheap, compared to standard electricity prices in Europe between 20-30 euro cent per kwh.
The situation in the Netherlands is such, and probably in other European countries as well, that the grid and power producers are completely separate. The grid merely transports electricity and since a few years in both directions. Aitionally there is a rule that if excess electricity is generated renewable, the fossil producers have to adapt. Which is in line with EU policy to get rid of fossil.
Are my kwh’s subsidized? Not really as my (solar) kwh’s are just as good as those from the conventional power producers, albeit much cleaner produced. What we see happening is that the government has broken the monopoly of these dirty producers. You could argue that the conventionals are now being charged for poluting the environment. You tell me where the fine line is between solar subsidy and poluting fines.
In Europe the fundamental decision has been made that we want to get rid of fossil fuel by 2050, with several intermediary milestones defined. The task for grids now is not only to tie solar panels into the grid but also provide (daily + seasonal) storage facilities, mostly via pumped hydro-storage (much to be preferred over chemical solutions) and calculate an economical price for that facility. It is the government task to oversee that largely seasonal complementary sources of renewable power (wind and solar) balance each other as good as possible to minimize storage requirements.
Apneaman on Mon, 26th Dec 2016 11:43 am
Heavy on the Cancer.
“Researchers publishing in the peer-reviewed journal The Anthropocene Review now estimate that the sum material output of humankind exceeds 30 trillion tons. Spread evenly, that would amount to 110 lbs of human-made stuff for every square meter of Earth’s surface”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/datadesign/2016/12/07/weighing-in-on-the-sum-total-of-humanitys-junk/#4645cb795cfa
Yabut Alt’s is green Cancer, so I’ve convinced myself it somehow don’t count.
GregT on Mon, 26th Dec 2016 11:46 am
“Am I?”
You understand exactly what I am talking about Cloggie. While you may like to stir the pot, you aren’t that stupid.
Apneaman on Mon, 26th Dec 2016 11:53 am
As Groundwater Dwindles, a Global Food Shock Looms
By mid-century, says a new study, some of the biggest grain-producing regions could run dry.
“Nearly half of our food comes from the warm, dry parts of the planet, where excessive groundwater pumping to irrigate crops is rapidly shrinking the porous underground reservoirs called aquifers. Vast swaths of India, Pakistan, southern Europe, and the western United States could face depleted aquifers by mid-century, a recent study finds—taking a bite out of the food supply and leaving as many as 1.8 billion people without access to this crucial source of fresh water.”
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/12/groundwater-depletion-global-food-supply/
Yabut solar panels N hope will magically recharge the aquifers.
GregT on Mon, 26th Dec 2016 11:54 am
“Gasoline is still under $2.00. Happy holidays.”
$3.95 per US gallon here today Kevin. Happy planetary destruction.
Cloggie on Mon, 26th Dec 2016 12:09 pm
You understand exactly what I am talking about Cloggie.
No I don’t, please explain.
Why are conventional power stations subsidizing me? They just got new competitors thanks to new government regulations, which is of course a disadvantage for them. They are being punished for producing dirty and a CO2 price is added to their product.
https://www.watkostenergie.nl/energie-berekenen/energieprijzen/wat-kost-1-kwh/
As you can verify: consumer price electricity in NL is 23 cents. 7 cents is real production cost, 3.5 cent VAT (“BTW”) and 12 cent taxes.
As you can see the conventionals produce at comparable cost (7 cent) as a private person like me (9.7 cent).
The conventional producer never has to pay me 23 cent, he only needs to compensate me for every kwh I pump in the grid, as long as I do not produce more than I consume.
Last year I consumed 1550 kwh and produced 1450 kwh. So my electricity bill was 100 x 23 cent = 23 euro.
The real significance is that I am already in 2016 able to produce at comparable prices as the conventionals, it is merely 2.7 cent per kwh difference.
The consequence is that conventional producers gradually need to take capacity from the market, exactly as what we want to see happening.
penury on Mon, 26th Dec 2016 12:26 pm
When something sounds better than it should, would you believe them? I greatly fear that the cost of solar is slightly higher than the cost of panels. Mayber not. All I need to do is buy a couple of solar panels, and voila my house and everything is automatically re=wired and the electronics are re=wired to accept DC as well as AC, All the grids automatically start transmitting “solar” and sufficient batteries suddenly appear to handle the needs of 30 million calif residents, and the vest part its all free not like those nasty fossil fuels which cost. Solar is free, free, free, of course its all BS
sunweb on Mon, 26th Dec 2016 12:32 pm
Boat “keep up with the world. Renewables is the normal accepted term.”
It is the salesman’s term not the student of processes term.
It is the term use to sell grants and subsidies.
They are repeatables if lucky in a decade.
Davy on Mon, 26th Dec 2016 12:41 pm
Clog/boat, techno optimism is valid to a point. That point is currently limited to small overall gains and lots of noise of future gains. A difficult economy or war could dash your optimism significantly and immediately. You seldom acknowledge how fragile your optimism is. If you tempered your hype I would be more inclined to agree with you. All I need to do is ask why are you optimist here anyway? I think it is becuase you are subconsciously worried.
Cloggie on Mon, 26th Dec 2016 12:42 pm
I greatly fear that the cost of solar is slightly higher than the cost of panels.
Of course it is. Solar energy is intermittent so you need to organize storage facilities, typically pumped hydro-storage in mountains. The good news, at least for NW-Europe is that solar and wind largely balance each other. Solar is big in the summer, wind in the winter. So you don’t need that much storage. Furthermore we have a continental scale grid in Europe. And the bigger the grid area, the less storage you actually need. Storage is not really an issue for renewable share < 40%.
https://cleantechnica.com/2016/12/09/much-energy-storage-needed-solar-wind-powered-grid/
Me on Mon, 26th Dec 2016 12:44 pm
What is “renewable energy”? Oh, that’s right, it is the oil-powered and oil-maintained creation of electricity.
Ok, now that we’ve got that right, let’s begin again.
Fossil fuels are powering alternative energy and always will. So our renewable energy future just vaporized in a cloud of black smoke. There is no such thing as renewable energy (except sunshine and photosynthesis).
Humans are quick to deceive themselves, capitalizing on fabricated markets while the oil still flows. But then what?
Nobody cares. Nobody is paying attention.
Bob Inget on Mon, 26th Dec 2016 12:45 pm
Solar powered desalination along with recycling remains two of the best fresh water solutions.
Hubert on Mon, 26th Dec 2016 12:45 pm
Dame solar panels cost a lot of water to keep them clean. Not working for Nevada.
Me on Mon, 26th Dec 2016 12:47 pm
Good grief. Subsidies are not “free”. They are redistributed costs on YOU as your government increases the demand for taxes to pay for all these free giveaways.
GregT on Mon, 26th Dec 2016 12:54 pm
“Storage is not really an issue for renewable share < 40%."
Solar panels and wind turbines are not renewable Cloggie. Trees and fish are. When we aren't consuming them faster than they can naturally renew themselves, like we currently are.
Cloggie on Mon, 26th Dec 2016 1:10 pm
Solar panels and wind turbines are not renewable Cloggie. Trees and fish are. When we aren’t consuming them faster than they can naturally renew themselves, like we currently are.
That’s the eternal point of difference between us.
Oil is not renewable because you can burn a gallon only once and the total stockpile of oil is decreased afterwards with one gallon for all eternity.
With the energy yield from wind or solar you can build new wind and solar. That’s the meaning of “renewable”.
With kWh’s from wind and solar you can do everything you can do with fossil. You can convert electricity from wind and solar even in fossil fuel or hydrogen and fly a plane with it. Or drive big agricultural or mining machines with it.
You don’t need conventional fossil fuel for anything at all.
It is really renewable and not inevitably an extension of the fossil fuel system, as many here claim it is.
Cloggie on Mon, 26th Dec 2016 1:12 pm
Water to Fuel Converter (with electricity):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqjn3mup1So
Cloggie on Mon, 26th Dec 2016 1:15 pm
This Is The Worlds First Four-Seat Hydrogen-Powered Aircraft:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFQ2zQiDIJ4
(October 2016)
rockman on Mon, 26th Dec 2016 1:28 pm
“The renewable energy future will arrive when installing a new solar panels is cheaper than a comparable investment in coal, natural gas or other options. If you ask the World Economic Forum (WEF), the day has arrived.” Perhaps. It has for wind in Texas. But some folks are talking past each other by not detailing the dynamics. Rarely will NEW solar/wind power be cheaper then power from EXISTING ff powered infrastructure when one includes the cost of the NEW solar/wind infrastructure. Comparing generating costs is misleading since the theoretical alt generation that’s being compared to the ff generated system doesn’t exist. IOW two very different economic models.
Again back the best EXISTING model compared to the various THEORETICAL models tossed around: Texas wind power. Not one Btu of ff generated power was abandoned. Wind was built out to meet increasing electricity demand and not to replace ff. So the cost for NEW wind infrastructure competed against the cost of NEW ff infrastructure.
In that sense the $7 Billion spent to upgrade the grid doesn’t have to be entirely charged against the wind build out: grid improvements would have been done to accommodate new electricity generation regardless of the source.
And while solar lagged far behind wind in Texas it might be starting its own growth spurt. As mentioned before the city of Georgetown has begun the process of going 100% alt 24/7. Part includes paying higher initial rates on a 20 year contract for solar thus providing financial incentive for the investors of a new solar field. And the better news: it will utilize the existing grid upgrade to deliver power to Georgetown. And no grid storage required: when the sun don’t shine the wind can be blowing: Georgetown also signed a 20 year contract with a wind provider. And on those rare occasions when the wind ain’t blowing at night we still have the ff system inplace since they weren’t abandoned.
Yes: it would have been nice to have affordable grid storage available years ago. But Texas would still be waiting to expand our alt energy, wouldn’t it? Instead based on sound economics Texas produces more solar/wind power then any other state: 50% more then CA #1 solar and 3X Iowa’s #2 wind. And forget the weak sister bullshit about the percentages: one big goal of alt energy is to reduce GHG production, right? So while one state might be producing a higher % of its electricity from alts Texas has eliminated more GHG production with its alt infrastructure then any other state. IOW Mother Earth doesn’t care if Iowa produces a higher % of its power from wind then Texas: She only responds to how much CO2 is pumped into Her atmosphere. And the Texas new alt sources have reduced that amount more then any other state.
Granted Texas has some geographical advantages over some states…but not the majority. One of our biggest advantages was having a booming economy/population that provided financial justification to expand electrical capacity. Expand EXPENSIVE alt capacity as opposed to expanding EXPENSIVE ff capacity.
And many won’t like this aspect but IMHO it’s the most important take away: Texas alt development was not based on any concern for the environmental. It was done for purely financial reasons. If Texas found a away to do so others should be able to do likewise.
Jerry McManus on Mon, 26th Dec 2016 2:44 pm
Um, last time I looked, solar panels are made out of fossil fuels. If they are cheaper than fossil fuels then the only explanation is that they are heavily subsidized by the profits (and taxes) from other fossil fueled activities.
Unless, of course, you are one of those people who seem to believe that solar panels and windmills just magically appear out of nowhere, kind of like unicorn farts.
In which case, let’s just go back to sleep and have sweet dreams instead.
rockman on Mon, 26th Dec 2016 3:31 pm
Jerry – That was part of my point. Granted seemingly trivial but still important: poor phraseology. Something even the Rockman occasionally goofs. Such as “solar is cheaper the fossil fuels”. Solar what? Solar sourced electricity? Solar sourced thermal energy? Solar infrastructure? Solar energy…the sun? Etc. Even the “cost of solar” isn’t well defined. The retail cost of panels? The panels + installation? ¢/kW? Panels + installation + land? Total infrastructure cost – subsidies?
We see it often: “Solar is cheaper the fossil fuels”. To build? To generate electricity? To supplement other sources? To replace other sources?
What I meant by folks “talking past each other”.
antaris on Mon, 26th Dec 2016 4:30 pm
Clogg, I live about 8 km from Ballard Power. Am always amazed when we go down to the river for a walk and signs are still up around Ballards complex. I thought they would go completely tits up years ago. In 2000 stock price was $189 and now just over $2. Hydrogen power is just like squeezing oil out of rock, a great way to remove money from ignorant people.
Anonymous on Mon, 26th Dec 2016 5:38 pm
NK, I remember back when ballad was a thing. I understand you can still buy product from them? But I also recall hearing a full ballard fuel system, all in, was something like 1 million dollars (ca.). A few BC transit buses were outfitted with ballard h2 fuel cells, nothing much ever came of it. At those prices and high maintenance etc, you have to ask, why not just sink rails in the roadway and run an electric tram. Low maintenance and will last a century or longer with routine maintenance. Unlike a ballard fuel cell system that needs to be rebuilt on a regular basis at no small cost. Vancouver had electric buses powered by overhead lines until recently.
Oh yea, cant. GM bribed city managers back in the 30s-50s to tear tram lines out across north America, so they could freeways and parkades instead.
Apneaman on Mon, 26th Dec 2016 6:00 pm
Sprinting towards extinction? Cheetah numbers crash globally
“…. the study reveals that just 7,100 cheetahs remain globally, representing the best available estimate for the species to date. Furthermore, the cheetah has been driven out of 91% of its historic range.”
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-12-sprinting-extinction-cheetah-globally.html#jCp
It’s like the humans want to take out as many other species as they can before it’s their turn to go bye bye (soon).
Apneaman on Mon, 26th Dec 2016 6:03 pm
The mythical ‘endless summer’ is becoming a detested reality in South Florida
“In 2015 and again in 2016, Miami’s weather in December was essentially no different from that in June or July — high temperatures in the upper 80s, dew points in the upper 70s. The resulting heat index was then in the 90s.
In Miami, over a dozen records have already been broken this month. All of them have been heat-related records; there hasn’t been a single cold record in winter’s first month.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/12/23/the-mythical-endless-summer-is-becoming-a-detested-reality-in-south-florida/?utm_term=.343116fc0719
Deniers and retired boomers – let em fry.
Apneaman on Mon, 26th Dec 2016 6:08 pm
STEVEN CHU SHARES SOME SOBERING CLIMATE CHANGE MATH
https://climateone.org/video/steven-chu-shares-some-sobering-climate-change-math
Truth Has A Liberal Bias on Mon, 26th Dec 2016 6:53 pm
“expect lower Co2 numbers even though btu use will be up”
Fuck is boat ever retarded. The guy has proven he can’t even do simple math (a billion barrels of oil last 10 years he once claimed) yet he expects us to believe he has a successful investment portfolio and can predict CO2 emissions based on BTUs. What a fucking dip shit. Good thing he hangs out on this pathetic blog on the shallow end of the pool. Let’s face it, there are many good energy, economy and ecology blogs on the net and many feature the comments of well educated people, but other than Rockman I’d say most commenters on this blog barely graduated high school. It’s safe to say that boat won’t be splitting the atom, fuck I doubt he can balance his check book without a calculator.
Harquebus on Mon, 26th Dec 2016 7:00 pm
1450kwh = 0.853boe
http://www.convert-me.com/en/convert/energy/
makati1 on Mon, 26th Dec 2016 7:48 pm
Ap, I like you comment: “Deniers and retired boomers – let em fry.” I predate Boomers by bit so I am sure it does not apply to me. lol
A Christmas typhoon just passed across the Ps, and was a bad one weather-wise, thanks to a warmer than usual Pacific Ocean. There have been six other Christmas typhoons over the last 75 years, but none as strong. I suspect that their frequency will increase, just as the average temperatures have increased in the eight plus years I have lived here. But, it is still only 86F today with a chance of a thunderstorm. I can live with that.
Cloggie on Tue, 27th Dec 2016 3:42 am
Clog/boat, techno optimism is valid to a point. That point is currently limited to small overall gains and lots of noise of future gains. A difficult economy or war could dash your optimism significantly and immediately. You seldom acknowledge how fragile your optimism is. If you tempered your hype I would be more inclined to agree with you. All I need to do is ask why are you optimist here anyway? I think it is because you are subconsciously worried.
Davy, as you know I am a prepper. I am absolutely not an “optimist”. I do not believe in BAU. I believe in financial collapse, in vastly reduced living standards in the future West.
Having said that, I am totally allergic against that self-defeating nihilism and “we’re all going to die” attitude.
After having all comfortably growing fat living in the US empire, we are now facing enormous challenges. That’s bad news for couch potatoes, but not necessarily for people who like challenges, like climbing the Everest or running a marathon. As a techie I LOVE the idea we have to construct an entire new energy base.
We are rapidly approaching a cascade in the river called world history. It is not just energy or the fate of industrial society, it is also major geopolitical upheaval, and the potential return of continental Europe in the global arena.
Rather than experience drama’s on television, we will soon experience it in our own lives. We are all going to play a role in a movie and this time we have to bring our own script.
Life is getting interesting, real again.
peakyeast on Tue, 27th Dec 2016 6:55 am
In fossil fuels there is not only the energy content. There is also easy storage and mobility.
Just comparing the energy content is not enough.
I do believe we could live with energy from renewable energy techs. The question is if everybody else agrees to a power down with a life outlook to a significantly less rich future. I think not – not when just greed alone with no help from “I need” can create large wars.
Cloggie on Tue, 27th Dec 2016 7:28 am
Let’s look at the Siemens 6 MW wind turbine, specifications:
http://tinyurl.com/nn7dmqz
Swept area = 18600 m2
Average wind speed North Sea: 9.5 m/s
Density air: 1.2 kg/m3
How much energy on average is passing the wind turbine swept area per second?
Mass/second = 18600 x 9.5 x 1.2 = 212040 kg/s
Kinetic energy = 0.5 x m x v x v = 0.5 x 212040 x 9.5 x 9.5 = 9568305 Joule = 9.6 MJ.
Power = 9.6 MW (which translates into 6 MW due to conversion losses).
One liter of oil represents 35 MJ.
In other words, the airflow above the North Sea hitting the rotor area of said 6 MW turbine represents the energy equivalent of 1 liter oil per 4 seconds or 1 barrel of 190 liter in 760 seconds or 13 minutes.
That’s 124 barrel/day or 45260 barrel/year or 1.4 million barrel of oil during its entire lifetime.
There is also easy storage and mobility.
– You can easily store electricity in a lake without explosive hazards.
– It is easier and cheaper to transport electricity than oil.
– Regarding mobility, they are working on it and making great progress.
Davy on Tue, 27th Dec 2016 7:37 am
Clog, I think we both suffer from a range of emotions on this issue. Me, well, I range into the deep darkness of doom. You, clog, you venture into the light of hopium. Me, I see terrible eventualities, you, great possibilities. Our middle is the here and now and in this here and now there are the seeds of both possibilities. We are both here with this realization. We may be on the cusp of greatness or failure. I should say we are on the cusp of greatness and failure. We have to include both because it is going to be a mixture depending on your local. When ecosystem complexity is shattered in the process of destructive change niches open up and greatness is allowed but failure is a consequence of this process. Many of us are not going to make it through this process. None of us get out in the end of course but I am talking life now undefined. This is what I think and why it is so important we are here. We are next to something that is beyond comprehension because it will not be what we know now or expect.
Sometimes I want to believe what I just said. Yet, should I believe that? I am a doomer but I am open to optimism. I have a feeling we are going to see an explosion of fate at some point. Life is going to be different. Yet, that is in my mind and reality is different. My optimism is we can make important changes. We can make a difference but I feel that difference is local and it is limited. Clog, you seem to think that harsh times will unfold into a greater change at a new and different level. We both see globalism ending but you seem to think something new and better will replace globalism. A renewable world with a different political and social arrangement. Your optimism in my mind is reaching too far. Your optimism is fantasy when I put myself in it. I want it but a part of me says, no, it does not add up.
Maybe it is the combining of the two views in some kind of equation that is needed. This is what I try to do when I look at the future. This is a moving target for me. I have gone from periods of excessive doom to guarded optimism. This target is also in scale and time frame. Can we find something like a good life but time defined? You know like the movies. A man gets a new life but with a time frame. I feel climate change is a brick wall for all our dreams. Peak oil and the economy are going to end globalism in my mind but this will be a process with winners and losers. This place in my mind is academic and entertainment. No, not entertainment in sick enjoyment of others suffering but entertainment from a great show unfolding. The academic aspect is I am learning something here daily. In a way this is art because it reflects life. We are painting a picture of what is ahead. Our canvas is debate.
peakyeast on Tue, 27th Dec 2016 7:41 am
@clog: Pumped storage for entire nations? OK – but the energy to make these lakes and the loss of land must be included in the “renewable” energy calculation.