Google Gives Up On Renewables - Eco Romantics Confront Reality

[Testy Calibrate]

Not sure I understand the point of this thread. Are you saying renewables are more expensive than burning carbon?

 

[maxparrish]

More importantly, the author let's the cat out of the bag near the end:



If that does not generate a knowing "economically competitive" smile, then one does not have a sense of humor.

You do realize that 30% is not a large number?
What are you going to say when cost of solar drops 30% and it is no longer needs tax credits?
Point is, solar became competitive with coal for the first time. Before that it had not been competitive. Yes tax credits were included but they were not 1000%

I am saying it is usually foolish and a waste of public resources to subsidize industries. They claim they are now competitive - bully for the crony capitalists. Now cut them loose and let them prove it. If they fail, so be it.

 

[maxparrish]

Not sure I understand the point of this thread. Are you saying renewables are more expensive than burning carbon?

The Google research project, after four years of effort, said that in most circumstances and in the context of making a profit, the answer is yes.

1) Its first goal was to "produce a gigawatt of renewable power more cheaply than a coal-fired plant could, and to achieve this in years, not decades."

2)Its second goal was to see if the most optimistic assumptions on cost reductions in renewables and energy storage could stop or reverse CO2 emissions and climate change. They wondered if such technology could reduce emissions 55 percent in 2050, and if it would impact climate change.

They came to a shocking conclusion - they couldn't see a way to make any widely distributed renewable cheaper than coal, and even if they could wouldn't make a difference in CO2 atmospheric levels. Part of the problem is that "the owner would have to factor in the capital investment for construction and continued costs of operation and maintenance—and still make a profit while generating electricity for less than $0.04/kWh to $0.06/kWh."

That was a tough target to meet...

"But that’s not the whole story. Although the electricity from a giant coal plant is physically indistinguishable from the electricity from a rooftop solar panel, the value of generated electricity varies. In the marketplace, utility companies pay different prices for electricity, depending on how easily it can be supplied to reliably meet local demand.

“Dispatchable” power, which can be ramped up and down quickly, fetches the highest market price. Distributed power, generated close to the electricity meter, can also be worth more, as it avoids the costs and losses associated with transmission and distribution. Residential customers in the contiguous United States pay from $0.09/kWh to $0.20/kWh, a significant portion of which pays for transmission and distribution costs. And here we see an opportunity for change. A distributed, dispatchable power source could prompt a switchover if it could undercut those end-user prices, selling electricity for less than $0.09/kWh to $0.20/kWh in local marketplaces. At such prices, the zero-carbon system would simply be the thrifty choice.

Unfortunately, most of today’s clean generation sources can’t provide power that is both distributed and dispatchable. Solar panels, for example, can be put on every rooftop but can’t provide power if the sun isn’t shining. Yet if we invented a distributed, dispatchable power technology, it could transform the energy marketplace and the roles played by utilities and their customers. Smaller players could generate not only electricity but also profit, buying and selling energy locally from one another at real-time prices. Small operators, with far less infrastructure than a utility company and far more derring-do, might experiment more freely and come up with valuable innovations more quickly.

Renewables, other than nuclear power, are little more than a 'cracks and crevices' technology, only suitable for special situations with government subsidies.

 

[barbos]

You do realize that 30% is not a large number?
What are you going to say when cost of solar drops 30% and it is no longer needs tax credits?
Point is, solar became competitive with coal for the first time. Before that it had not been competitive. Yes tax credits were included but they were not 1000%

I am saying it is usually foolish and a waste of public resources to subsidize industries. They claim they are now competitive - bully for the crony capitalists. Now cut them loose and let them prove it. If they fail, so be it.

I agree, they should stop subsidizing coal. In fact they should make it retroactive.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Every single thread created by max: GOTCHYA STUPID LIBRULS. MURICA.

 

[Togo]

They came to a shocking conclusion - they couldn't see a way to make any widely distributed renewable cheaper than coal, and even if they could wouldn't make a difference in CO2 atmospheric levels.

No, that isn't what it says. Read it again. It says they wouldn't meet their target with this alone, not that it wouldn't make a difference.

Renewables, other than nuclear power, are little more than a 'cracks and crevices' technology, only suitable for special situations with government subsidies.

Your conclusion doesn't follow from the article. The article is looking for a distributed and dispatchable power system, but nuclear is neither distributed, nor as dispatchable as coal, and is far more reliant on government subsidies than renewables.

The issue has always been distribution - transporting electricity isn't free. Its expensive, and inefficient, and the only reason the grid works is because it smoothes demand so much. One way to solve that is to produce a small domestic form of generation that would not involve a grid, which is what they were trying to do. Another way to solve would be to improve the technology of the distribution system.

My in-laws just put in solar panels. They'll pay back in about 5-7 years, and then make a small profit thereafter. The problem is that you really only make money by reducing your own electricity costs. You don't make much by selling back to the grid. As a result, they'll still make a profit from the installation, but there are stock market investments that might would perform better in the long run. The aim of the google analysts was to make ecological choices a no-brainer by making them more profitable than other investments - you can already make a small profit going solar.

 

[lpetrich]

I am not sure if this is relevant to this thread or not but:
http://www.google.com/green/energy/investments/

Investments – Google Green

Even though Google had abandoned the RE < C project, it still has plenty of investment fingers in RE < C pies. Like "In April 2014 we signed an agreement to put $100 million into a fund with SunPower Corporation to finance residential solar installations."

What the article is referring to is that electricity demand fluctuates a lot, but power stations work best when you don't keep on turning them off and on again. So quoting a levelled market price is misleading, because you end up spending more than that. You need capacity to meet peak demand. This is becoming more of a problem as we turn from coal and gas, which can be switched off and on comparatively easily, to nuclear and renewables, where it isn't so easy.

That's why storage has become a big issue among renewable-energy supporters. Several companies are working on various technologies for that, and

Not sure I understand the point of this thread. Are you saying renewables are more expensive than burning carbon?

That's what he seems to be saying. The price of everything and the value of nothing, it seems.

I am saying it is usually foolish and a waste of public resources to subsidize industries. They claim they are now competitive - bully for the crony capitalists. Now cut them loose and let them prove it. If they fail, so be it.

Except when it's building new industries. I will concede that subsidies are bad for mature ones, however.

Republicans Defend Tax Breaks for Oil Companies » pa
Oil hearings: Oil executives defend profits, tax cuts at Senate hearing - Los Angeles Times
Back in 2011.
About a bill to end tax subsidies for oil companies, Republicans threatened to filibuster it, and the head of ConocoPhillips called it "un-American".

Newt Gingrich: Oil Subsidies Are Good Because Liberals Want "All Of Us To Live In Big Cities In High Rises, Taking Mass Transit." | ThinkProgress

Barton: Govt Subsidies Necessary To Keep Exxon From Going Out Of Business

 

[dismal]

That's why storage has become a big issue among renewable-energy supporters.

It's funny that someone would be a "renewable energy supporter" instead of a "low cost energy supporter" or a "reliable energy supporter" with agnosticism about the source.

 

[KeepTalking]

So, if we are to directly evaluate the two claims made in the OP:

Google Gives Up On Renewables - False, as has been shown in this thread, and in posted links, Google is still spending billions on renewables.

Eco Romantics Confront Reality - The reality that Eco Romantics (whoever they are) have to confront is that to the conservation viewpoint, subsidies on traditional carbon-based energy sources are good because Exxon might go out of business if we end their subsidies and tax breaks, but subsidies on renewable energy sources are bad because without them many new businesses involved in developing renewable energy sources might go out of business if we end their subsidies and tax breaks.

The conservative disconnect never ceases to amaze.

 

[lpetrich]

That's why storage has become a big issue among renewable-energy supporters.

It's funny that someone would be a "renewable energy supporter" instead of a "low cost energy supporter" or a "reliable energy supporter" with agnosticism about the source.

So we should all be concerned with the cost of everything and the value of nothing? We should all sneer at anyone who gets a car more expensive than a Yugo?

 

[Testy Calibrate]

That's why storage has become a big issue among renewable-energy supporters.

It's funny that someone would be a "renewable energy supporter" instead of a "low cost energy supporter" or a "reliable energy supporter" with agnosticism about the source.

Well, no it isn't. Renewable is a word which means 'renewable'.

 

[dismal]

It's funny that someone would be a "renewable energy supporter" instead of a "low cost energy supporter" or a "reliable energy supporter" with agnosticism about the source.

Well, no it isn't. Renewable is a word which means 'renewable'.

I suppose this qualifies as a keen observation from someone who would call themselves a "renewable energy supporter".

Can you identify any other words that mean themselves?

I understand "Blue" is a word that means blue.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

It's funny that someone would be a "renewable energy supporter" instead of a "low cost energy supporter" or a "reliable energy supporter" with agnosticism about the source.

Well, no it isn't. Renewable is a word which means 'renewable'.

I suppose this qualifies as a keen observation from someone who would call themselves a "renewable energy supporter".

Can you identify any other words that mean themselves?

I understand "Blue" is a word that means blue.

You seem to misunderstand the idea of value. Each of those words you attached at the beginning of the phrase represents a different value. Low cost might be one value but it isn't necessarily the right value. Reliable might be one value but it isn't necessarily the most important value. Renewable might be one value but it isn't the same value as the others. I am not sure you thought this one through all the way.

 

[dismal]

It's funny that someone would be a "renewable energy supporter" instead of a "low cost energy supporter" or a "reliable energy supporter" with agnosticism about the source.

Well, no it isn't. Renewable is a word which means 'renewable'.

I suppose this qualifies as a keen observation from someone who would call themselves a "renewable energy supporter".

Can you identify any other words that mean themselves?

I understand "Blue" is a word that means blue.

You seem to misunderstand the idea of value. Each of those words you attached at the beginning of the phrase represents a different value. Low cost might be one value but it isn't necessarily the right value. Reliable might be one value but it isn't necessarily the most important value. Renewable might be one value but it isn't the same value as the others. I am not sure you thought this one through all the way.

We don't have to agree. You renewable energy supporters should go ahead and use all the renewable power you want. Be the change.

 

[maxparrish]

So, if we are to directly evaluate the two claims made in the OP:

Google Gives Up On Renewables - False, as has been shown in this thread, and in posted links, Google is still spending billions on renewables.

Eco Romantics Confront Reality - The reality that Eco Romantics (whoever they are) have to confront is that to the conservation viewpoint, subsidies on traditional carbon-based energy sources are good because Exxon might go out of business if we end their subsidies and tax breaks, but subsidies on renewable energy sources are bad because without them many new businesses involved in developing renewable energy sources might go out of business if we end their subsidies and tax breaks.

The conservative disconnect never ceases to amaze.

Nor should the liberal disconnect. If you had bothered to read the article in the link provided you would have discovered the context in which Google gave up on renewable's as a replacement for non-renewables in the world's power grids, and discover why it aptly supports my characterization on why the ER's need a reality check. As explained to those who didn't bother to read the link:

The Google research project, after four years of effort, said that in most circumstances and in the context of making a profit, the answer is yes.

1) Its first goal was to "produce a gigawatt of renewable power more cheaply than a coal-fired plant could, and to achieve this in years, not decades."

2)Its second goal was to see if the most optimistic assumptions on cost reductions in renewables and energy storage could stop or reverse CO2 emissions and climate change. They wondered if such technology could reduce emissions 55 percent in 2050, and if it would impact climate change.

They came to a shocking conclusion - they couldn't see a way to make any widely distributed renewable cheaper than coal, and even if they could wouldn't make a difference in CO2 atmospheric levels. Part of the problem is that "the owner would have to factor in the capital investment for construction and continued costs of operation and maintenance—and still make a profit while generating electricity for less than $0.04/kWh to $0.06/kWh."

The straw man that Google continues to work on renewables for its own purposes is quite beside the point, at least to any alert reader.

And you are going to have to do better than unsupported and subjective speculations on Exxon's alleged tax subsidy, or its supposed inability to make a profit, before your supposed "connect" provides other with more than dial tone.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

alleged tax subsidy? that's kind of obvious propaganda/polemic.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/oil-subsidies-renewable-energy-tax-breaks

 

[KeepTalking]

Nor should the liberal disconnect. If you had bothered to read the article in the link provided you would have discovered the context in which Google gave up on renewable's as a replacement for non-renewables in the world's power grids, and discover why it aptly supports my characterization on why the ER's need a reality check. As explained to those who didn't bother to read the link:

I did read the link, and many others posted in this thread of yours, which has a piss-poor opening post.

The straw man that Google continues to work on renewables for its own purposes is quite beside the point, at least to any alert reader.

It is your summation in the thread title, extremely lacking OP, and bizarrely titled linked article that is the strawman. If any one of these things were an honest depiction, it would read "Google gives up on one renewable project among many".

And you are going to have to do better than unsupported and subjective speculations on Exxon's alleged tax subsidy, or its supposed inability to make a profit, before your supposed "connect" provides other with more than dial tone.

From the can't be bothered to read the links posted in your own thread department, I refer you to lpetrich's post from page 3:

Barton: Govt Subsidies Necessary To Keep Exxon From Going Out Of Business

If you had bothered to read this link, you would have noted the following quote:

Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX)... argued that the subsidies represent equal treatment, and are required to keep the companies like Exxon-Mobil from going out of business.

 

[maxparrish]

First, who gets most of the tax preferences:

Second, what is the nature of those tax preferences:

-DOE's Spending Supports Direct Investments and Subsidized Credit Programs

-Over 50 percent of the $3.3 billion in 2012 funding for direct investments by DOE is for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs.

-Between 2009 and 2012, DOE provided an estimated $4.0 billion in subsidies for about $25 billion in loans, primarily to producers of advanced vehicles, generators of solar power, and manufacturers of solar equipment.

Somehow I missed the part where Exxon will go out of business without alleged tax subsidies.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43032

 

[KeepTalking]

Somehow I missed the part where Exxon will go out of business without alleged tax subsidies.

Well then, perhaps you should scroll up.

 

[dismal]

First, who gets most of the tax preferences:

Second, what is the nature of those tax preferences:

-DOE's Spending Supports Direct Investments and Subsidized Credit Programs

-Over 50 percent of the $3.3 billion in 2012 funding for direct investments by DOE is for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs.

-Between 2009 and 2012, DOE provided an estimated $4.0 billion in subsidies for about $25 billion in loans, primarily to producers of advanced vehicles, generators of solar power, and manufacturers of solar equipment.

Somehow I missed the part where Exxon will go out of business without alleged tax subsidies.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43032

Now scale that to energy produced and you have a true comparison.

Ignoring the fact that what often gets counted as subsidies for fossil fuels is stuff like accelerated depreciation that the government hands out to other industries like jelly beans.

For example, we produce 148X more energy from fossil fuels than solar.