[Graeme]

Pops, I think you and others should be aware that there are other groups (besides the ones listed above) in America who think that your country can be powered by 100% renewable electricity by 2030.

How to power America with renewables on the cheap: Build a shit ton of wind and solar capacity

America could be powered almost entirely with wind turbines and solar systems by 2030 at a cost comparable to what we’re spending for dirty power today, a new study finds. The necessary approach would surprise most people, and it would generate enough economic activity to make any capitalist drool: Build, build, build … and then build some more.

For the study, published in the Journal of Power Sources, researchers used a model to evaluate the cost effectiveness and reliability of tens of billions of combinations of renewable energy generation and storage capacity. They found:

At 2030 technology costs and with excess electricity displacing natural gas, we find that the electric system can be powered 90%–99.9% of hours entirely on renewable electricity, at costs comparable to today’s—but only if we optimize the mix of generation and storage technologies. …

We find that 90% of hours are covered most cost-effectively by a system that generates from renewables 180% the electrical energy needed by load, and 99.9% of hours are covered by generating almost 290% of need. Only [9 to 72 hours] of storage were required to cover 99.9% of hours of load over four years. So much excess generation of renewables is a new idea, but it is not problematic or inefficient, any more than it is problematic to build a thermal power plant requiring fuel input at 250% of the electrical output, as we do today.

grist

[Plantagenet]

Fossil-fuel companies are only after a quick buck.

As opposed to the noble and pure alternative energy companies who don't care about money and only are in business to save the world?

Give me a break. The alternative energy companies just want to make a quick buck too---the same as the fossil fuel companies do.

The problem is that many of the alternative energy companies aren't competitive and can't make a buck without subsidies from the government. And when those subsidies turn into crony capitalism or the subsidies get cut or scaled back the noble and pure alternative energy companies who dont care about money suddenly care desperately about money as they go bankrupt.


Government subsidies to alternative energy companies who donate money to the same politicians who give them the money is classic corrupt crony capitalism

[Graeme]

The Solyndra Solar case is complex but most of the details can be viewed at the wiki site.

Solyndra was a manufacturer of cylindrical panels of copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS) thin-film solar cells based in Fremont, California. Although the company was once touted for its unusual technology, plummeting silicon prices led to the company's being unable to compete with more conventional solar panels.[1]

More analysis for failure here:

One thing the past year has clarified, though, is that Solyndra wasn't necessarily a bellwether. Critics often note that several other U.S. solar firms also failed in 2011, but upheaval is common in young or evolving markets — as seen after the 1990s dot-com boom. In Solyndra's case, the failure was at least partly due to falling silicon prices: The company was founded in 2005 when silicon was expensive, and touted its silicon-free cylinders as a key alternative to photovoltaics (PVs). But as silicon prices fell in '09 and '10, Solyndra pulled its IPO and closed one of its factories. When the DOE refinanced its loan last year, it may have already been too late.

And here:

It was unfortunate enough that the ill-fated company received DoE loans and then declared bankruptcy. Once the Republican Party attempted to exploit that into what they saw as an Obama scandal, those signs looming over 880 were like knives twisting in the gut of solar.


For me, the departure of the signs represents a delightful turning point for the industry. The cloud has been lifted. It's a symbol that the story of the company's fall is finally "old news" that no one is interested in any more. The fact that President Obama was so bullish on clean technology in his 2013 State of the Union is testament to this. The Republicans may have gained some short term political leverage by attacking an industry that's growing at 13% and creating over 13,000 new jobs in this country, but the Obama reelection shows they ultimately did not succeed with the tactic.

As the industry continues to grow and challenge entrenched fossil fuel interests, we can expect more attempts the politicize solar, especially as more states reach grid parity. Ultimately, the solar industry will find it's mainstream legs and reach a tipping point to being the energy of choice. Until then, it's up to us as an industry to educate and shape public perception in the industry’s favor.

[careinke]

A carbon budget is the maximum amount of CO2 that can be emitted in the
future, based on scientifically-estimated probabilities of staying below 2°C
of global warming, above which would lead to catastrophic or “runaway”
climate change beyond humanity’s capacity to manage.

I think we are a little late. Staying below 2 C? Not going to happen.

[Graeme]

One way to fight global warming is to shut out the polluters. This battle will be fought to the bitter end when the fossil-fuel industry will lose. But in the meantime, there is battle being fought right now across USA.

The Attack On Renewable Energy Standards In Numbers

At least twenty-two of the 29 state renewables standards have been attacked by legislators or regulators in the last year or are now under attack.

Known as a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) or a Renewable Energy Standard (RES), these mandates require utilities to obtain a portion of their power from renewable sources by a certain date. Research shows they add less than 5 percent, on average, to the cost of electricity bills and are an effective driver of renewables growth.

Some of the attacks are part of a push led by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and aligned advocacy groups funded by fossil and nuclear interests. Most lack significant force. “But if they slow things,” Environment America Energy Program Director Rob Sargent noted, “they’re having an impact.”

The most serious fights

1. Landmark struggles between advocates for traditional generation and renewables in Kansas narrowly went to renewables in the most recent session. Bills that would have weakened the 20 percent by 2020 standard either by extending it to 2024 or revising it to 15 percent by 2018 were held up in committee. Both sides remain committed to their respective positions.

2. A North Carolina Assembly bill would essentially freeze the existing 12.5 percent standard at the present 3 percent except for existing contracts. Local advocates say the attack has moved moderate Republicans away.

3. In Vermont, anti-wind activists’ proposal would require large energy projects to comply to Act 250, the state’s land-use law and allow a minority to force costly delays on developers and slow the growth driven by Vermont’s popular 20 percent by 2017 standard.

4. Pennsylvania’s 18 percent by 2021 standard is under serious attack by an all-Republican legislature and Republican governor. One bill would allow natural gas to count toward the mandate, another would allow solid waste incineration to replace wind and solar, and a third would eliminate the tracking of new generation, allowing burned renewables to displace wind and solar.

5.The 15 percent by 2021 standard in Missouri was, as a ballot measure, approved by 66 percent of the state’s electorate. A new bill allowing hydroelectric to displace wind and solar, which appears on its way to approval, would reverse the voters’ will and stall out wind and solar growth.

6.In Ohio, a bill would review the 25 percent by 2025 standard and the state’s efficiency standard and another would repeal the standard, despite a recent poll showing almost 80 percent of Ohio voters support the mandate.

7.Two major utilities have long lobbied in Connecticut to count HydroQuebec power toward the state’s 20 percent by 2020 standard. This year’s version would ostensibly expand the standard to 25 percent by 2025. But its provisions for hydro would end up allowing less wind and solar in 2025 than the current standard mandates for 2020. Supporters are rushing the measure to a vote and some legislators are beginning to wonder what the hurry is.

cleantechnica

Residential Solar Power Heads Toward Grid Parity

Photovoltaics are still, on average, a pricey, subsidy-dependent source of electricity. However, rooftop panels are beginning to beat the grid in a number of jurisdictions with high retail power rates—and their ranks are projected to swell over this decade. A growing number of economists say that rapidly shrinking costs have turned distributed solar generation into a disruptive technology that’s set for runaway growth. In fact, they say, it could ultimately upend the power distribution market. 


“We’re completely unprepared for the opportunity that’s going to present itself,” says John Farrell, an economist and senior researcher at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, a Minneapolis-based economic think tank. 


Farrell got beyond the less-inspiring U.S. national average price of rooftop solar on homes and businesses by examining how it stacks up in each of 3100 electric utility rate zones across the country. He projected the per-kilowatt costs of generation from PV systems through 2022 by estimating the cost of installing and maintaining them over their 25-year lifetime and calculating the number of kilowatt-hours they are likely to generate under each zone’s prevailing sunlight. Dividing cost by generation gave him what economists call the levelized cost of solar energy, which he compared to the local utility’s retail power rates. 


The results, presented since January as an online map, suggest that rooftop PV already delivers power more cheaply than the U.S. grid for more than 10 percent of residential demand in five states—California, Connecticut, Hawaii, New Hampshire, and New Jersey. By 2022, home panels are predicted to be the economic winner for at least 10 percent of residential demand in 49 states; the grid holds its edge only in the state of Washington, thanks to notoriously gray skies and cheap local hydropower. PV installed by businesses, meanwhile, will be competitive with at least 10 percent of total U.S. commercial power consumption in 2022.

The most controversial element in the new economic forecasts for solar is what drives its spread across Farrell’s map as the years pass: the assumption that PV costs will continue to fall. Critics of solar energy attribute its plummeting prices to massive overproduction in China and to subsidy trimming in Europe. According to this argument, prices will rise as more producers go bankrupt (as Solyndra did famously in 2011 and others have since) and supply shrinks. 


Stefan Reichelstein, faculty research director at Stanford’s Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance, however, says the evidence indicates otherwise. His study, in Energy Policy, evaluated the impact of the unusually large price drops in recent years—40 percent in 2011 alone. Replacing PV’s recent dips with an extension of its historic price curve, which has been remarkably smooth for three decades, only increases the levelized cost of today’s systems by 12 to 15 percent. This suggests that the real drivers of PV’s price decline are technology and industrial efficiency, and there is no reason to believe they will hit a wall.


ieee

[Graeme]

Carbon bubble will plunge the world into another financial crisis – report

The world could be heading for a major economic crisis as stock markets inflate an investment bubble in fossil fuels to the tune of trillions of dollars, according to leading economists.

"The financial crisis has shown what happens when risks accumulate unnoticed," said Lord (Nicholas) Stern, a professor at the London School of Economics. He said the risk was "very big indeed" and that almost all investors and regulators were failing to address it.

The so-called "carbon bubble" is the result of an over-valuation of oil, coal and gas reserves held by fossil fuel companies. According to a report published on Friday, at least two-thirds of these reserves will have to remain underground if the world is to meet existing internationally agreed targets to avoid the threshold for "dangerous" climate change. If the agreements hold, these reserves will be in effect unburnable and so worthless – leading to massive market losses. But the stock markets are betting on countries' inaction on climate change.

The stark report is by Stern and Carbon Tracker, a thinktank supported by organisations including HSBC, Citi, Standard and Poor's and the International Energy Agency. The Bank of England has also recognised that a collapse in the value of oil, gas and coal assets as nations tackle global warming is a potential systemic risk to the economy, with London being particularly at risk owing to its huge listings of coal.

Stern said that far from reducing efforts to develop fossil fuels, the top 200 companies spent $674bn (£441bn) in 2012 to find and exploit even more new resources, a sum equivalent to 1% of global GDP, which could end up as "stranded" or valueless assets. Stern's landmark 2006 report on the economic impact of climate change – commissioned by the then chancellor, Gordon Brown – concluded that spending 1% of GDP would pay for a transition to a clean and sustainable economy.



Stern and Leaton both point to China as evidence that carbon cuts are likely to be delivered. China's leaders have said its coal use will peak in the next five years, said Leaton, but this has not been priced in. "I don't know why the market does not believe China," he said. "When it says it is going to do something, it usually does." He said the US and Australia were banking on selling coal to China but that this "doesn't add up".

Jeremy Grantham, a billionaire fund manager who oversees $106bn of assets, said his company was on the verge of pulling out of all coal and unconventional fossil fuels, such as oil from tar sands. "The probability of them running into trouble is too high for me to take that risk as an investor." He said: "If we mean to burn all the coal and any appreciable percentage of the tar sands, or other unconventional oil and gas then we're cooked. [There are] terrible consequences that we will lay at the door of our grandchildren."

guardian

businessgreen

bloomberg

[Graeme]

San Francisco and Seattle lead US cities pulling funds from fossil fuel firms

The cities of San Francisco and Seattle have pulled their money out of fossil fuel companies, taking a climate divestment campaign from college campuses to local government.

The campaign group 350.org said on Thursday it had won commitments from a total of 10 cities and towns to divest from 200 of leading fossil fuel companies.

"Divestment is just one of the steps we can take to address the climate crisis," the Seattle mayor, Mike McGinn, said in a statement. The divestment decision carries real weight for cities such as San Francisco, which control large employee pension funds.

City supervisors in San Francisco voted this week to move some $583m in its $16bn pension fund that was invested in fossil fuel companies. Other cities that signed on to the divestment campaign include: Madison and Bayfield in Wisconsin, Ithaca, New York, Boulder, Colorado, State College, Pennsylvania, Eugene, Oregon, and Richmond and Berkeley, both in California.

Jamie Henn of 350.org said the divestment commitments from those smaller centres would help put pressure on state authorities to take a look at their investments.

guardian

[Graeme]

Al Gore: world is on brink of 'carbon bubble'

The world is on the brink of the "largest bubble ever" in finance, because of the undisclosed value of high-carbon assets on companies' balance sheets, and investment managers who fail to take account of the risks are failing in their fiduciary duty to shareholders and investors, Al Gore and his investment partner, David Blood, have said.

"Stranded carbon assets" such as coal mines, fossil fuel power stations and petrol-fuelled vehicle plants represent at least $7tn on the books of publicly listed companies, and about twice as much again is owned by private companies, state governments and sovereign wealth funds.

As the danger from climate change intensifies, and as rules on carbon and the introduction of carbon pricing in many parts of the world start to bite, these assets are expected to come under threat, from regulation and from the need to transform the economy on to a low-carbon footing. The "carbon bubble" has been identified by leading thinkers on climate change in recent years, but so far the findings have had little real effect on investor behaviour.

Now Gore and Blood, the former US vice-president and ex-chief executive of Goldman Sachs, who are partners in the Generation Investment Management firm, have brought forward a four-point plan that they say will protect future investors. They are calling on companies, investors and regulators to identify the carbon risks in their portfolios; to demand of company managers and boards that the risks should be publicly disclosed; to diversify their investment portfolios to include low-carbon infrastructure such as renewable energy and electric vehicles; and finally to take their money out of fossil fuels and other high-carbon assets, or turn them into low-carbon assets - for instance, by installing carbon capture and storage units on power stations.

theguardian

[Graeme]

Unburnable carbon risk threatens ASX shares more than most

Investors in the Australian share market are exposed, more than most, to the “inevitable” risk of unburnable carbon, and should consider divesting their portfolios of all heavily fossil-fuel exposed companies, a new report has warned.

Released on Wednesday by The Australia Institute in conjunction with 350.org and Market Forces, the report – Climate Proofing Your Investments: Moving Funds Out of Fossil Fuels – is the latest in a raft of documents warning institutional investors against the risk of “unburnable carbon.”

Unburnable carbon, explains the report, “is the risk to investors who hold shares in companies owning reserves that those reserves will become ‘stranded’, that is, they will lose economic value prior to the end of their useful life.” And the risk to investors in the Australian share market, it says, is “more than most.”

The report warns that the large-scale stranding of billions of dollars worth of fossil fuel investments is inevitable, if governments around the world act on their stated climate objectives of restricting global warming to an increase of 2°C.

Currently, however, the world’s fossil fuel companies are “estimating with 90 per cent certainty that they will be able to extract freely (for subsequent sale and combustion) over three times more carbon than is compatible with the internationally agreed 2 degree limit.”

This constitutes a “fundamental contradiction,” says the report, warning that even action insufficient to prevent runaway climate change will have “a significant negative impact” on fossil fuel asset prices.

“Fossil fuel business valuations involve a fundamental intellectual ‘fallacy of composition’ – analogous to the traditional speculative bubble,” says the report. “Investors’ expectations cannot be met as they have become divorced from the physical reality and committed policy response.”

According to the report, Australia’s stock exchange (the ASX) has significant carbon exposure, although its fossil fuel intensity is lower than many of its peers, both in terms of total carbon and carbon intensity.

reneweconomy

Europe’s banks in $1-tril risk from ‘carbon bubble’: report

Investors that ditch coal and gas for lower carbon energy will avoid big losses down the line, according to two new studies released today, further grist for the mill in a growing global campaign to shun financing for fuels blamed for climate change.

The first of the studies, which was released today in Brussels, said financial institutions including banks and pension funds could see $1 trillion of assets in fossil fuels at risk if the world agrees to slash emissions of greenhouse gases to avoid runaway climate change.

“The most vulnerable financial institutions include two of Europe’s largest banks in France and a number of sizeable pension funds in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Yet again for other Member States, such as Germany, a lack of transparency has hidden their carbon exposure,” said the report, which was commissioned by Green Party MEPs.

The carbon bubble concept refers to the overvaluation of remaining fossil fuel reserves in the scenario that major emitters go low carbon, which would require these commodities to be left in the ground, rendering them stranded assets.

Another report, authored by an Australian think tank, said investors wouldn’t lose out.

rtcc

[Keith_McClary]

How Soon Dead is Coal?
Summary of the unburnable carbon investment risk issue from Montana.

[ROCKMAN]

Now that we've heard from folks that don't like coal and never miss an opportunity forecast it's "death" let's look at the facts and forecast of folks who are essentially unbiased IMHO:

First, a unarguable fact: since 2008 global coal consumption increased 15%.

And the future: “Like it or not, coal is here to stay for a long time to come,” IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven said at the launch of the book. “Coal is abundant and geopolitically secure, and coal-fired plants are easily integrated into existing power systems. With advantages like these, it is easy to see why coal demand continues to grow." Coal demand will grow at an average rate of 2.3% per year through 2018 compared with the 2012 report’s forecast of 2.6% for the five years through 2017 and the actual growth rate of 3.4% per year between 2007 and 2012.

Spin to your hearts' content, boys, and cast whatever predictions you want. None of it changes the actual numbers.

[Graeme]

Exxon to Shareholders: No Carbon Bubble Risk Here. Carbon Tracker to Exxon: Really?

Still own some Exxon Mobil stock and been dithering about divestment?

You’re leaving money on the table, and exposing your portfolio to severe risks that the company itself is underestimating. That’s according to a new report published by the Carbon Tracker Initiative, which finds that the stock’s recently sub-par performance can partially be explained by the company’s increasing dependence on tar sands.

Carbon Tracker says that Exxon is “significantly underestimating the risks to its business model from investments in higher cost, higher carbon reserves; increasing national and subnational climate regulation; competition from renewables; and demand stagnation.”

Back in March, Exxon responded to a shareholder resolution by Arjuna Capital and As You Sow, two shareholder advocacy organizations, regarding potential carbon asset risk. The original resolution had demanded greater transparency in how Exxon assesses the risks to its significant carbon-based assets in a future where low-carbon policies and changing market forces could strand these assets. Exxon responded with a 29-page report, “Energy and Carbon – Managing the Risks.”

The Carbon Tracker Initiative closely examined Exxon’s report and has now published a firm rebuttal.

The report, published on September 12, looks at the recent past and into the future. It’s first section examines Exxon’s recent low returns to shareholders, drawing a correlation between the stock’s underperformance and the company’s considerable recent investments in Canadian tar sands.

The second section looks forward, revealing how the company seriously underestimates — and even disregards — the potential financial risks of carbon policies and changes in the energy markets.

Diminishing Returns

Over the past five years, ending in July 2014, Exxon Mobil (XOM) stock has underperformed the S&P 500, by 8 percent. This is a sour turn at the end of four straight decades of dominance, which saw XOM outperform the broader market, beating the S&P 500 by 4 percent for the past 40 years. If you invested in Exxon stock in 2009, your returns would be just 60 percent what you could’ve earned by investing in the S&P Index.

Significantly, CTI’s analysis found that the company’s increasing investments in Canadian tar sands and other unconventional, expensive oil plays are at least partially to blame. The report’s authors write that the deteriorating stock returns “[reflect] Exxon’s choice to put increasingly more investment in to capital intensive, low return projects. These include tar sands, heavy oil, arctic developments and mega‐ projects such as Kashagan.”

desmogblog

[Graeme]

Oil Crashing in the Same Car?

Oil prices fell for the third month in a row as leaders of over 100 nations prepare for the United Nations' Climate Summit, which aims to spur countries to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, largely from fossil fuels. Most media attribute oil price slumps to oversupply from US fracking, omitting the fact that governments are discussing whether oil companies will be allowed to extract all the fossil fuel they've already priced into their stocks.

"Yes, I think when it dawns on the industry that we really can't pull all these hydrocarbons out of the ground, prices of hydrocarbon equities will drop," says Dr. Amir Ali Farman-Farma, Managing Partner, Connexion Capital LLP, a commodity and emerging markets focused alternative investments firm. "You can look for clues in dominant psychology," he added. "When headlines become dominated with climate change risk, when it becomes clear that 'business as usual' jeopardises the survival of the species, and you get mass movements to put a stop to the craziness, and politicians reacting to that, then there will be changes to the way oil companies are valued."

Is that now?

The Japanese started using candlestick charts in the 18th century for rice trading. This monthly Japanese candlestick chart shows oil breaking out of its range with a bearish engulfing pattern. Engulfing patterns are among the simplest, most reliable candlestick patterns. This pattern consists of two candles, the first month being June 2015 (fourth from the last--the last green candle). It's a narrow-range candle that closes up for the month. In June, the buyers are still in control of the price, but because prices stay in a narrow range, volatility is low, and buyers are not very aggressive. The next month, July 2015, is a wide range red candle that 'engulfs' the body of the preceding candle and closes below the bottom of the range. The sellers have overwhelmed the buyers (supply is greater than demand). Sellers take control in August and September breaking through support into the free-fall zone.

"The technical outlook is poor," says political economist Marc Chandler, Global Head of Markets Strategy at Brown Brothers Harriman. "A break of $90 would target $83-$85. I would put it in the broader context of weak commodity prices. I think supply-demand is also negative for oil--US producing the most in several decades and China demand softening."

huffingtonpost

[Graeme]

High Oil Prices Are No Defense Against Risk Of Stranded Assets

There has been much concern in the financial community recently about the risk of “stranded assets” in the oil industry, particularly if governments introduce strict carbon regulations to fight climate change and therefore reduce demand for oil, which would reduce the price.

At the same time, developing new oil wells is becoming more and more expensive. Most of the easy oil has already been discovered and much of it is under the control of national oil companies in countries ranging from Russia to Iran to Venezuela. That means the Western oil majors are having to look for oil further afield and in more challenging environments – from Brazil’s “pre-salt” resources, which lie under 2km of ocean and a further 2km of salt, to the Arctic or politically challenging countries such as Iraq.

Then there are the unconventional sources such as tar sands, which are technologically challenging, require more processing and are more carbon-intensive. Finally, one of the major sources of new supply in recent years, oil from the US shale fields, has a phenomenally high decline rate which requires constant drilling of new wells.

As a result, there have been record levels of capex since 2005 but this has led to a very modest increase in total oil supplies.

Meanwhile, the oil exporting countries are exporting a lower proportion of their supplies because they need growing amounts at home thanks to rapidly growing populations and strong demand encouraged by highly subsidised oil prices.

Inevitably, this increases costs and means that these projects require a high oil price to be profitable, increasing the possibility that new resources could become “stranded” if the price of oil falls. This is becoming a very real concern given that oil prices have fallen $20 a barrel since June on fears over falling demand.

However, a new report says there is another risk that is being largely ignored – that assets will be unprofitable even if oil prices remain high in the long term. The study by the sustainability research team at Paris-based Kepler Cheuvreux, points out that despite an average oil price of around $110/bbl since mid-2011, the oil majors have seen a sharp fall in their capital productivity that has led to cuts in future capital expenditure forecasts.

forbes

[Graeme]

A New Climate? How A Utility, Germany, Elon Musk And Falling Oil Prices Are Conspiring To Fight CO2

In fact, by piecing together a series of seemingly unrelated threads, there’s a case to be made that 2014 will be remembered as a critical year in the decarbonization of the global economy. Sound unbelievable? Tie these eight stories together and see if the resulting crazy quilt doesn’t look like something significant.

1) Oil prices collapse

At first glance, this is a devastating blow to reducing carbon consumption. When a good becomes less expensive we tend to use more of it — not less. And the fall in gas prices has already led to an uptick in SUV and truck sales. But a funny thing happened on the way to the F-150: Nissan continues to set records for sales of its all-electric Leaf and Tesla Motors also is having its best year. Sales of fuel-efficient, affordable vehicles like the Honda Fit also continue to rise sharply.

While the auto sector produces mixed news, its worth understanding what’s leading to the price collapse in the first place. A slowing global economy has reduced demand for oil, which means less is being burned. And the world’s fastest-growing producer, the United States, has found most of its new supply from hydraulic fracturing techniques, aka fracking. The same technology that has boosted the oil patch in the U.S. has led to a massive expansion of natural gas supply and usage. In turn, coal is disappearing from the scene in this country. On the twisty road to cleaner, more renewable energy natural gas trumps coal and we only have it thanks to the kind of activity that’s crushing oil prices. While those lower prices will make weaning ourselves off of gas-powered cars more challenging, there is hope….

2) The era of the carbon tax may have arrived

Far and away the most straightforward method for reducing carbon emissions is to tax them. But Americans, understandably, are reluctant to accept any additional tax burdens, especially as many are still feeling the effects of the worst recession in generations. If, however, there was a way to make sure any new tax on carbon was offset dollar for dollar elsewhere, the potential of a win-win becomes real. Take for example the tax on hiring new workers that’s imposed by Social Security. What if that could be lowered using proceeds from a carbon tax?

Bob Inglis, a former South Carolina congressman who favors the idea, told National Geographic he thinks the politics could possibly work. The timing would have to be just right, perhaps after the 2106 presidential election, but the appeal of a broad-based tax cut should be strong. Inglis also thinks there’s some real meat here to conservatives. A number of EPA rules could go by the wayside if a mechanism was in place to reduce carbon over time via taxation. Simpler rules equals less government. Ian Adams of the R Street Institute expressed similar sentiments in The Oregonian: “This could be done while simultaneously complying with the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed regulations on greenhouse gas emissions in a much less economically destructive way,” he wrote.

Right now, these conservative voices are just a few, but they make a great deal of sense. With Republicans in firm control of Congress, perhaps their concept of shrinking government will ultimately come around to the ideas of Inglis and Adams.

3) The China syndrome

One thing that has changed on the political landscape is that it’s no longer so easy to claim the U.S. should ignore carbon emissions because, well, China is going to just undo whatever good we can do. The November 9 deal between President’s Xi and Obama has been widely criticized, but nevertheless represents a major milestone in getting the world’s biggest economies on the record to do something about emissions. And an analysis by Brookings suggests that it’s likely China’s sincerity is being underestimated.

There are innumerable details for both parties to work out to reach their respective targets set forth in the deal, but it is important to understand a couple of things about China here. First, the air pollution there is already so severe they quite literally are killing themselves. It’s almost implausible to believe they won’t live up to the accord given it’s a matter of life and death. Second, because of China’s command economy, it can achieve successes at a greater rate than the market will in many cases. The latest forecasts call for a tripling of global solar power by decade’s end. If China wanted that number to then double every 2 years for the next decade, it alone could make such a result happen.

4) Renewables cheaper than coal, gas, and everything else

Fortunately, China likely won’t be going it alone, however. Just last week, the New York Times reported utilities were signing contracts to buy power from renewables for less than the cost of electricity from fossil fuels. While some of those deals relied on government subsidies that are expiring and unlikely to be renewed, the most important news was this:

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard … natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

forbes

[sunweb]

Since they are extensions of the fossil fuel supply system and the huge global industrial infrastructure also supported by fossil fuels, it is probably the death knell of "renewables". Before naysaying, prove that the solar and wind energy capturing devices can be made from the get go without fossil fuels and the infrastructure.
It would be elegant if wind and solar energy capturing devices could actually maintain a modicum of the wonderfully rich lifestyles many of us live. I believe this is a false dream and that BAU (business as usual) is not sustainable or “green” nor really desirable for the future of the earth or even our species.

I have researched the energy requirements and the CO2 emissions for just the rebar and concrete used for the base of a 2.5 megawatt wind energy capturing device (wind turbine). Notice also all the equipment needed throughout the process of making and installing; these in themselves have an input of energy the materials.There are charts and pictures. It is sobering.
See charts and data at: http://sunweber.blogspot.com/2014/11/pr ... wrong.html
And this is just the base of one small wind energy capturing device. Talk about now, not some imaginary future possibility.

[MonteQuest]

What It Would Really Take to Reverse Climate Change

Today’s renewable energy technologies won’t save us. So what will?

"Trying to combat climate change exclusively with today’s renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach."

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change

[Graeme]

Tomorrows.

We’re glad that Google tried something ambitious with the RE<C initiative, and we’re proud to have been part of the project. But with 20/20 hindsight, we see that it didn’t go far enough, and that truly disruptive technologies are what our planet needs. To reverse climate change, our society requires something beyond today’s renewable energy technologies. Fortunately, new discoveries are changing the way we think about physics, nanotechnology, and biology all the time. While humanity is currently on a trajectory to severe climate change, this disaster can be averted if researchers aim for goals that seem nearly impossible.

We’re hopeful, because sometimes engineers and scientists do achieve the impossible. Consider the space program, which required outlandish inventions for the rockets that brought astronauts to the moon. MIT engineers constructed the lightweight and compact Apollo Guidance Computer, for example, using some of the first integrated circuits, and did this in the vacuum-tube era when computers filled rooms. Their achievements pushed computer science forward and helped create today’s wonderful wired world. Now, R&D dollars must go to inventors who are tackling the daunting energy challenge so they can boldly try out their crazy ideas. We can’t yet imagine which of these technologies will ultimately work and usher in a new era of prosperity—but the people of this prosperous future won’t be able to imagine how we lived without them.

About the Authors

Ross Koningstein and David Fork are engineers at Google, who worked together on the bold renewable energy initiative known as RE<C. They dedicate this article to the memory of Tim Allen, who led the project. Allen inspired them to question their assumptions about what it would take to reverse climate change. “He wasn’t married to one approach,” Koningstein says. “He was intent on solving the problem.”