Comments on: High Capital Costs Plague Solar (RPS mandates, cost dilution via energy mixing required) Part III http://www.masterresource.org/2009/11/high-capital-costs-plague-solar-rps-mandates-cost-dilution-via-energy-mixing-required-part-iii/ A free-market energy blog Tue, 09 Mar 2010 19:24:40 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Jacob http://www.masterresource.org/2009/11/high-capital-costs-plague-solar-rps-mandates-cost-dilution-via-energy-mixing-required-part-iii/comment-page-1/#comment-3407 Jacob Thu, 26 Nov 2009 02:08:35 +0000 http://www.masterresource.org/?p=5732#comment-3407 The reason for the push for renewables isn't entirely CO2 emission reductions. It's largely to rid ourselves of the necessity of foreign oil, and gain energy independence. We need to make sure that energy is bought and sold on a free market, and that can only exist if that market is subject to a single set of regulations. By ensuring all energy consumed in the US is produced within the US, we ensure that consumers are what drive the price of the commodity (i.e. capitalism), and not speculators or oil cartels. Plus, studies which infer that solar or wind energy will not reduce CO2 emissions are blissfully shortsighted. The idea of a petroleum-free future isn't limited to the next 20 years, as these studies tend to be, but for the next 500 years, at which point new construction is being fueled by renewable energy instead of oil. This IS the defining technology of the 21st century. If America doesn't hop on board, we're going to be left behind. The reason for the push for renewables isn’t entirely CO2 emission reductions. It’s largely to rid ourselves of the necessity of foreign oil, and gain energy independence. We need to make sure that energy is bought and sold on a free market, and that can only exist if that market is subject to a single set of regulations. By ensuring all energy consumed in the US is produced within the US, we ensure that consumers are what drive the price of the commodity (i.e. capitalism), and not speculators or oil cartels.

Plus, studies which infer that solar or wind energy will not reduce CO2 emissions are blissfully shortsighted. The idea of a petroleum-free future isn’t limited to the next 20 years, as these studies tend to be, but for the next 500 years, at which point new construction is being fueled by renewable energy instead of oil.

This IS the defining technology of the 21st century. If America doesn’t hop on board, we’re going to be left behind.

]]> By: Jon Boone http://www.masterresource.org/2009/11/high-capital-costs-plague-solar-rps-mandates-cost-dilution-via-energy-mixing-required-part-iii/comment-page-1/#comment-3397 Jon Boone Wed, 25 Nov 2009 03:44:42 +0000 http://www.masterresource.org/?p=5732#comment-3397 In chasing its tail to meet "renewables" obligations, the country is liable to find itself tied in a knot. I concede that a combined cycle natural gas/solar hybrid will sound a siren's call for those eager to believe pigs can fly. However, one might take a peak at Kent Hawkins' recent article about wind and its inability to offset meaningful levels of CO2 emissions, which is the reason for the push for renewables. As Hawkins shows, marrying a combined cycle natural gas unit with a volatile renewable, does not substantially reduce CO2 emissions. The real question, which Peter Lang earlier posed for wind and natural gas, is how much CO2 would be offset with such a "hybrid" contraption, compared with the natural gas unit alone, without any partnership with solar? If Lang and Hawkins are correct, then the answer would be--negligible, at best. In chasing its tail to meet “renewables” obligations, the country is liable to find itself tied in a knot. I concede that a combined cycle natural gas/solar hybrid will sound a siren’s call for those eager to believe pigs can fly. However, one might take a peak at Kent Hawkins’ recent article about wind and its inability to offset meaningful levels of CO2 emissions, which is the reason for the push for renewables.

As Hawkins shows, marrying a combined cycle natural gas unit with a volatile renewable, does not substantially reduce CO2 emissions.

The real question, which Peter Lang earlier posed for wind and natural gas, is how much CO2 would be offset with such a “hybrid” contraption, compared with the natural gas unit alone, without any partnership with solar? If Lang and Hawkins are correct, then the answer would be–negligible, at best.

]]> By: Jon Boone http://www.masterresource.org/2009/11/high-capital-costs-plague-solar-rps-mandates-cost-dilution-via-energy-mixing-required-part-iii/comment-page-1/#comment-3396 Jon Boone Wed, 25 Nov 2009 03:22:50 +0000 http://www.masterresource.org/?p=5732#comment-3396 ERCOT's capacity credit for all its installed wind, at 8.7%, is virtually identical to the capacity credit, on an hourly basis, of a stopped clock. However, twice a day, the stopped clock produces certain capacity--whereas the capacity credit for wind is merely statistical, an average of what was produced over a certain time. This average can no more predict what the wind project's will produce in any time ahead event than can a batter's average predict what he would do in his next at bat. ERCOT’s capacity credit for all its installed wind, at 8.7%, is virtually identical to the capacity credit, on an hourly basis, of a stopped clock.
However, twice a day, the stopped clock produces certain capacity–whereas the capacity credit for wind is merely statistical, an average of what was produced over a certain time. This average can no more predict what the wind project’s will produce in any time ahead event than can a batter’s average predict what he would do in his next at bat.

]]>