Alternative Energy Picking Up Steam
Share this article
ADVERTISEMENT
(comments below)
Comments
Comments
44 responses to “Alternative Energy Picking Up Steam”
-
They still aren’t economically viable and only value is virtue-signaling and money laundering Dem graft, but you do you
-
Walmart and South Carolina is “money laundering Dem graft”?
-
They’re smart enough to take advantage of government subsidies for “green” energy.
-
And if it were a laissez-faire economy, it would have collapsed in 2001.
-
-
The entire alternative energy system is viable only with government subsidies. Government subsidies = influencing investment behavior into ways that would not pay off without the subsidy, which is usually perfect for graft. Even in SC and certainly the stupid windmills offshore in VA (and killing dolphins and whales up north).
-
-
My solar system is extremely economically viable. One of the better investments I’ve made…
-
Oh, OK. And an “investment” because of the tax credits and the power company being forced to buy your electricity. But what about the poor people? Is it fair you got that and they didn’t?
-
Ummm… fossil fuel companies receive “tax credits” you know…
The power company is indeed regulated (as it should be) but gets to “buy” my green power without investing in the generation facility at non-green power rates then resell at a markup. A good gig if you can get it.
-
-
-
-
With enough subsidies, people will build igloos in Texas.
-
… or oil wells in Texas…
-
Or McDonald’s in China…
-
-
-
People not being able to afford food, rent and electric is not progress Dick.
-
During the day we reduce the hydrocarbon to electricity demand, which reduces demand for hydrocarbons, which reduces prices for hydrocarbons, which destroys Russia’s economy, which improves the chances that Ukraine can end the war…
-
Get real.
If Biden hadn’t signaled U.S. weakness with the pathetic and disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Russians might not have invaded in the first place.
One year after the fall of Kabul and the Taliban’s return to power, Afghanistan is in dire straits, and America and the broader West have yet to conduct a proper post-mortem of the policy failures there. Worse, Russia appears to have taken the US withdrawal as an invitation to launch a new war of its own.
But make no mistake, the fall of Kabul last year had repercussions that have yet to be fully appreciated. It demonstrated that the US might not have the staying power or the strategic patience that is necessary to achieve a military victory or ensure a lasting peace in countries where it has intervened. It showed that any other relatively marginal country or region might also be abandoned in the interest of focusing US resources on China.
The Kremlin certainly took note. Shortly after the Taliban’s takeover, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s national-security adviser noted publicly that the Ukrainians could not rely on the US to stick around for the long term. Within weeks of the fall of Kabul, Russian troop trains and tank transports had begun their massive move toward the Ukrainian border. As one war ended, another began.
– Carl Bildt was Sweden’s foreign minister from 2006 to 2014 and prime minister from 1991 to 1994
The entire article is worth reading.
-
-
The question isn’t whether the American government can use various methods of coercion to get companies and people to do its bidding. That government gave us the Vietnam War, stagflation, Iran Contra, Syria, the withdrawal from Afghanistan, a reversal of US energy independence and a massive unsustainable national debt. Our government has proven, time and again, that it can foist bad ideas on the American people.
The question is whether green energy, without deficit increasing government subsidies, is economically viable at this time. If so, why are mandates and subsidies required?
-
“The question is whether green energy, without deficit increasing government subsidies, is economically viable at this time.”
Why should green energy have to meet a standard fossil fuels don’t…?
-
It shouldn’t. There should be no subsidies for fossil fuels either.
-
-
Government subsidies have been used throughout our history to encourage new technologies. Case in point: railroads. They were given massive amounts of public lands that enable them to expand across the country. Then, as others have pointed out, are the subsidies for fossil fuels. Companies pay a below-market rate for drilling on public land and the actual royalty rate paid is lower than the nominal rate due to loopholes, exceptions, etc.
Furthermore, the coal industry enjoys tax breaks in Virginia.
-
Below market rates still result in a net gain, unlike many alternative boondoggles that send our tax dollars into a black hole.
“Federal revenues from oil and natural gas leases provide income streams that support a range of federal and state policies and programs. Revenues from oil and natural gas leases on onshore federal lands totaled $4.202 billion in FY2019.”
-Congressional Research Service
Solyndra received a $535 million U.S. Department of Energy loan guarantee. How’s that “investment” doing?
Remembering “Solyndra” – How Many $570M Green Energy Failures Are Hidden Inside Biden’s Infrastructure Proposal?
-
When you don’t have skin (money) in the game, does it matter if you close up shop a week afterwards?
People often forget the amount of individuals who went bankrupt in all these industries they demonize, before the Government stepped in.
-
-
The Federal Government didn’t subsidize Vanderbilt or Oil in the 1800’s, when they were starting. The subsidizes came after they were profitable and owners held monopolies. The same can be said for Coal, which subsidies didn’t start till 1932.
-
There should be no subsidies for anything produced by a for-profit company.
Giving tax breaks for the dying coal industry in Virginia is just another manifestation of campaign contribution driven stupidity from the Imperial Clown Show in Richmond.
-
I’d ‘upvote’ that comment twice if I could.
-
-
-
The question isn’t whether the American government can use various methods of coercion to get companies and people to do its bidding. That government gave us the Vietnam War, stagflation, Iran Contra, Syria, the withdrawal from Afghanistan, a reversal of US energy independence and a massive unsustainable national debt.
Don’t forget the 55 mph speed limit.
😉
-
-
The question isn’t whether the American government can use various methods of coercion to get companies and people to do its bidding. That government gave us the Vietnam War, stagflation, Iran Contra, Syria, the withdrawal from Afghanistan, a reversal of US energy independence and a massive unsustainable national debt. Our government has proven, time and again, that it can foist bad ideas on the American people.
The question is whether green energy, without deficit increasing government subsidies, is economically viable at this time. If so, why are mandates and subsidies required?
-
Take away the tax subsidies, and in some places the subsidies for sales back to the grid, and no retail outlet anywhere would have one acre of these panels.
-
The stores close at dusk? On cloudy days? No? Then some gas or nuke plant keeps the lights on 75% of the time, because solar works at best 25% of the time. That’s Dominion’s actual data now with years of experience with solar. Results are a bit better further south.
-
25% fewer hydrocarbons burned… wonder what that does to the price of gasoline?
-
Geothermal and burning leftover oat hulls produces energy at night and on cloudy days. Granted, these are not alternatives available to everybody, but it does show that there are some innovative ways to move away from fossil fuels.
-
Horse hockey. They are on the grid and ready to use the juice when needed. Show me a Wal-Mart that is energy self-sufficient, off the grid. You won’t find one. They are all over Virginia rate cases because they remain major electricity users. Geothermal might heat the building, but using it to generate small amounts of electricity is insanely inefficient. You need steam for that. Burning oat husks? Wanna calculate that carbon output?
-
“…but it does show that there are some innovative ways to move away from fossil fuels.”
Most conservatives have absolutely no problem with alternatives, if they make sense economically and are reliable long-term.
I have been interested in organic gardening, self sufficiency and alternative energy production since the 1970s.
I do, however, strongly object to the demonization and mandates against all fossil fuels. Fossil fuels have been instrumental in raising mankind’s standard of living, longevity and food production.
If someone wants to “go green,” I’m all for it. Just don’t do it on my dime, and don’t kill off the fossil fuel options that others rely on to heat their homes and feed their families.
-
Mr. Hall-Sizemore
Are you aware that Ball State’s own analysis showed that a natural gas alternative would also have produced the much touted 50 percent decrease in carbon emissions, but at a fraction of the cost to install?
Ball State claims Geothermal will save money over time, but that remains to be seen. I guess time will tell.
Additionally, information from Ball State is hardly an objective source.
https://eri.iu.edu/erit/case-studies/ball-state-university-geothermal.html
-
How much carbon does burning leftover oat hulls release into the atmosphere?
It seems to me that burning organic matter would be a step backwards from burning natural gas.
For instance, from the standpoint of BTUs produced, burning wood releases about 75% more CO2 than burning natural gas, with about twice the overall carbon emissions.
-
-
-
Maybe universities should ban cars on campus other than EVs.
-
And then denounce the students who can afford to drive EVs (or whose parents can afford for them) for their “privilege”…
-
And then denounce every student who can afford to drive an EV for his/her/their/its “privilege”…
-
Every legislature in the country should condition any appropriations to colleges and universities on requirement to limit the non-teaching staff — FTE student ratio to what it was 25 years ago, with the exception of public safety personnel. Decide what’s important but stay within the ratio.
-
-
-
“No matter how much some on this blog protest, the move to alternative energy sources is picking up momentum across the country.”
Let’s just be clear what BR bloggers are protesting — it’s not alternative energy. I’ll let Haner speak for himself, but I think solar and on-shore wind are wonderful… as long as they’re economically competitive when viewed in the context of grid costs and reliability.
Essentially, that means solar power and wind up to 30% or so of total electricity output is good. Solar and on-shore wind have the lowest levelized cost of energy of any power source. But over 30%, it becomes a different story because the system then needs expensive backup to offset the intermittent nature of solar/wind output. What Haner and I (and other commenters) are protesting is the damn-the-torpedoes-full-speed-ahead rush to a zero carbon electric grid heedless of consequences.
-
Agreed. Engineering and economics should drive the generation mix, not religion. Natural gas is an excellent baseload choice but if you want to pay the bill, nukes work well, too. The Wal-Marts can posture but baseload keeps the stores open.
-
Hydroelectric can provide the best storage for excess capacity. Water is pumped up when there is excess capacity, and then generates electricity when needed flowing down.
But unfortunately, the greenies are against building damns, and want to destroy the existing ones. They seem to have a genuine aversion to reliable energy.
-
-
I think it was Obama that said we need more of all of the above. However, tax credits for solar and EVs are for the well-to-do. Much of America cannot afford the cost of solar panels or an EV. Given the many pronouncements about income inequality from the left, how does this fit in? An issue that should be discussed, especially as there aren’t enough rich people to pay for everything on the “progressive menu.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/31/share-of-americans-living-paycheck-to-paycheck-jumped-in-2022.html
-
Just keep jacking up the deficit and the national debt. What could possibly go wrong?
The Chinese and the Saudis are doing what? Avoiding the dollar in their bilateral trade? What? The Chinese and the Brazilians too?
Oh well, who cares? Free stuff! Loose money! Cancel student debt to buy votes!
-
-
Our utility monopoly system rewards construction of new plants, not to mention enormous tax credits from Congress. Also the cost burden is put onto the middle class, whereas most states give business users quite a big discount on electricity cost. So there is not much resistance from business users, in fact they would like to see more green elect since they are not the ones paying the full cost. Some green sources such as *onshore* wind are cost effective, and super cost effective with huge tax credits.
-
Interesting by the way, that Dominion’s new direction to go after super-expensive zero-carbon electricity (offshore wind and nukes) has apparently depressed the stock price. Some say the profits will come back once Dominion gets building the huge plants (that we have to give them a profit just for building it, as a monopoly)
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.