37 Comments

1. RWE:

Well, first, thanks for the sources of electrical stats. I was going to look that up after having a CE tell me (an ME) that most of our imported oil is used to generate electricity.

Second, I agree with you completely. I have two friends who power their houses primarily by solar electric power. One lives so far back in the Vermont woods that he has no commercial power available – but he laso has a back-up Propane generator and a back-up back-up gasoline generator – and most importantly he is not stupid enough to try to live there in the winter.

The other guy put $50K into photovoltaic cells for his Florida home. But he has no storage and is floating on the commercial grid, which he relies on entirely at night. he sells his extra electricity back to the power company in the daytime, which is the only thing that keeps his system from representing defacto proof of insanity.

Even if all of us had an extra $50K to put solar cells on our roof (which sounds like less of a waste of money than most of these get-power-quick schemes) I still don’t think it would help out the power companies much. That generating capacity will not be under their control, will be subject to the condition of the transmission lines, and will be liable to be knocked out for extended periods during hurricanes and other storms. So I think the existence of those home systems will not ever affect the size of the power plants the companies have to build and operate.

Jul 1, 2009 - 8:13 am 2. aclay1:

Cap and trade isn’t about protecting the environment. It is about increasing government control of the economy using environmental camouflage. There is no rational reason to support Waxman-Markey other than to increase the centralization of influence in Washington.

Jul 1, 2009 - 9:43 am 3. Pajamas Media » Waxman-Markey Bill Flunks Math:

[...] Read the rest of the story here. [...]

Jul 2, 2009 - 10:44 am 4. Delia:

“Do you see where I’m going?”

Yep. This crap is pure insanity and it’s going to cripple our country.

Dark ages here we come.

Jul 2, 2009 - 10:51 am 5. Disco Prime:

I would not bet much on solar. What most people cannot possibly fathom is the vast amounts of resources to supply the materials of construction.
The core silicon used is grown in a zonal foundry process. Silicon crystal growth requires a buttload of energy to keep the material liquid while the crystal is grown. Once that is done, the “boule” (turd) needs to be cut into flat sections. All photovoltaics require this process.
Most of the silicon grown is used in the electronics industry. To grow enough to supply the electrical production of today is physically impossible. Your bet to supply enough for 2025 at 10% is laughable by people like me, who know the materials side. I would wager much less. Remember, in 2007 solar accounted for 0.1% OF RENEWABLES ALONE, so that is about 0.01% of TOTAL PRODUCTION (1/10 of the 10%, which is 1/10 of 100%).

It is all about energy density. Of course, if you are some stupid politician, who just happens to be a lawyer to boot, you could look at overturning the laws of physics.

Ha. Ha. Ha….

Jul 2, 2009 - 11:09 am 6. Macko:

It’s not just crazy it’s criminal.

We really need to take a hard look at the plan and a really thorough look at gore’s buddies and obama’s buddies, joyce foundation, GE the list is pretty long.

Jul 2, 2009 - 11:13 am 7. "progressive"watch:

Waxman-Markey doesn’t pass the smell test either. Or any other kind of test. Neither does our Chief-Liar-and-Thief.

When Al Gores’s solar-powered private jet goes through its first cloud burst that will be a great day for solar power.

Jul 2, 2009 - 11:14 am 8. Paul -Indiana:

Another side to this wind-solar hoax is this. We have been told that the electrical grid needs to be improved to move that power to where it can be used. There is no point in doing that considering the putative size of its contribution. Use it locally where it is produced.

Jul 2, 2009 - 11:23 am 9. Tomlw:

The thing that amazes me is that once again Congress has passed a huge bill that nobody has read. Is it asking too much to have them actually read the bills before they vote on them?

I would like to see a law put in place that would not allow a politician to vote on a bill unless they certify under penalty of perjury that they have read and understand the bill.

There is NO valid reason for these Bills to be pushed through so fast that no one knows what’s in them. (except of course it is done that way on purpose.)

Jul 2, 2009 - 11:28 am 10. Moogie:

“Here are two must reads–the first on clean coal by Gregg Easterbrook, the second on fission energy by Robert Metcalfe. Study them if you take electricity production seriously.”

Where? Did I miss a link somewhere?

I think well over half our population has no idea what the Waxman-Markey bill is. I doubt they know about Gore’s green exchange connection to the bill, or that G.E. is a huge Obama contributor. I doubt they even know the bill passed the House last week. In fact, I doubt they even know the process underwhich a bill goes: House then Senate. In fact, I doubt they’d even be concerned that the folks who passed this bill hadn’t even read the 1,100 page document.

Nihilism. It’s not just a mental disorder now – it’s a way of life.

Jul 2, 2009 - 11:32 am 11. Delia:

7. Paul -Indiana,

The ‘wind/solar’ b.s. is indeed a hoax and those fugly ‘windmills’ raping the landscape don’t even last long enough to justify the means.

P.S. I left you a link on the “Obama’s ‘Hope Without Change’ on Health Care Policy” thread regarding LaRaza and health care for illegal aliens.

Jul 2, 2009 - 11:38 am 12. Delia:

8. Moogie:

“Nihilism. It’s not just a mental disorder now – it’s a way of life.”
~

Moogster, just remember the axiom:

“Friends help you move. REAL friends help you move dead bodies.”

Jul 2, 2009 - 11:42 am 13. Strawman:

That’s just the beginning of the problems with Wax-Malarkey. Among others in a long list, even according to the IPCC’s worst-case models, this will not materially affect the climate outcome; it will only buy a couple of years at the end of the century before the magic number of 560 ppm is reached.

The real fraud in this bill is that no matter what climate scenario you run with, from “no big deal” to “the sky is falling”, this won’t do squat. Whether or not you believe that AGW is a fraud, this bill is one. There is NO case where this makes a significant difference in outcomes.

The Saudis want us to cripple our coal industry, but not oil imports. They got exactly what they wanted.

Jul 2, 2009 - 11:57 am 14. steveg:

Follow the money.

Jul 2, 2009 - 11:58 am 15. Strawman:

A note on natural gas: it’s a bit confusing to lump gas in with all other sources, because it’s used almost exclusively for what the utilities call “peaking”; that is it’s used for small gas turbine generators that only run a few hours in the morning and evening during peak demand. We can increase the amount of gas in the mix, but we can’t decrease it by much. This is the main reason why the Pickens plan can’t work.

These sources are sorta fungible, but not completely. Substitutions aren’t as easy as they look.

Jul 2, 2009 - 12:02 pm 16. Strawman:

That’s enough juice for the people in Waxman’s Los Angeles County. Or, if you prefer, for Nancy Pelosi’s metro San Francisco

One other dirty little secret: this bill will hit regions very disparately. In California, there’s a lot of nuke, and a fair amount of hydropower in the mix. In the NE, coal is far more dominant. So it’s no real surprise that Waxman and Pelosi think this is great; it’s not going to cost their constituents much.

Malarky, OTOH, is going to rue the day when his constituents get their electric bills.

Jul 2, 2009 - 12:07 pm 17. Sebastian Shaw:

Cap & Trade is a politically correct so-called green legislation for the Federal Government to grow even bigger to control private companies through energy; it is not meant to make any sense given all of it is based on junk science. Carbon is not a pollutant; in fact, carbon is fundamental to life on Earth given plants & most of the animals on the Earth are carbon-based lifeforms. Cap & Trade will make the recession into a depression. I think Obama believes this will increase his power when a huge backlash is growing right under his nose.

Jul 2, 2009 - 12:24 pm 18. Sebastian Shaw:

I’ll believe wind & solar are useful profitable sources of energy when Obama uses wind & solar instead of regular petroleum fuel for his planes & cars.

Furthermore, GE (NBC) is in collusion with Obama & Gore to make millions off this Cap & Trade nonsense. Where are the nosy reporters asking the hard questions?

Jul 2, 2009 - 12:30 pm 19. Mike:

“There are those naysayers who say it cannot be done…”

That is what Obama says, even in the face of imminent failure. The science behind Waxman-Markey is a joke. The bill is a joke. The Democrat’s health care legislation is a joke. (Actually, they are all tragedies, but it’s TGIF). The President has become a pyromaniac — of strawmen.

Jul 2, 2009 - 12:42 pm 20. Delia:

The genius who finds a way to run their engines using bean farts will rule the world. Hey-Zeus, where are you?

Jul 2, 2009 - 12:47 pm 21. Paul -Indiana:

#11, Delia. Thanks for the link. I’ll go there and give it a shot.

Jul 2, 2009 - 12:56 pm 22. seven:

Just to tie some things together. Enron started the windfarms that are now owned by GE,
Enron started the SO2 and carbon trading ventures
Enron was tight with James hansen the poster child for climate hysteria.
The trading schemes are fraud and the next bubble.
GE is owner of 25% of the bank bailout dollars in their GE finance division.
Wind/electric is highly subsidized. It will never carry itself.
Having mentioned subsidies, a large part of your utility bill will be paid thru your taxes. When they say energy costs will only be up a little, they will be up a lot and in addition, your federal tax will gather and distribute billions for subsidizing GE Credit, The construction of wind and the per KWH hour subsidy of wind electric and the payment of electric for poor people.
The reason enron failed was they had a cash cow in Northern natural Gas Pipeline but they conducted fraud in investments. The carbon credit traders will be a wild fraud exchange and lots will get busted and a few will get rich. Almost zero of the carbon offset dollars will go to american croplands.

Jul 2, 2009 - 2:09 pm 23. Professor Guvinoff:

Technology advances whenever someone discovers a new way of combining old things that is more useful than the previously known methods. Such advance could not possibly violate of the laws of nature, because each small step in the whole mechanism must be natural, even if the final outcome appears un-natural, i.e., people flying through the air. Contrary to some naively conceived narratives, scientific work is based on a humility and hard work, not some telegenic combination of hubris and petulance.

Politicans operate by a different set of rules, they worry about what sounds good instead of what can empirically be proven of disproven. This was the foundation of mythology in the pre-scientific ages: Wonderful story telling about the drama of rambunctious relationships and rivalries between the ancient gods, each one in the custody of some caprice of nature.

Trying to reconnect with such wonderfully charming folklore amounts to a longing for the past, a.k.a., giving up on civilisation! Politicans should never be allowed to make technological choices, unless of course the electorate is overtaken by some mythological nostalgia intense enough to justify the reversal of technical progress. To make a rational choice for one technology over another, you need to be in a position to pay for the product of one over that of the other. The best technology is the one that you would rather use and pay for it is was available, which has nothing to do with whatever rethorical panache came out of the marketing department, with or without government assistance.

What is regressive progress good for, other than wasting money and destroying wealth? Cap and trade means trade your prosperity to cap your aspirations, and don’t forget to drop one coin in each slot (one for the energy, the other one for the king) whenever you turn the light on.

Happy Independence day! Enjoy the tea party. See you there!

Jul 2, 2009 - 2:34 pm 24. LT:

I think this is the link to the Easterbrook article…http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/opinion/29easterbrook.html

Jul 2, 2009 - 3:30 pm 25. x_logo:

I’m in the process of installing a 5kW solar system in Arizona where we have sun about 300 days per year. It will save about $700 annually in the electric bill. It will cost about $30,000 installed, with the solar panels costing around $18,000, with the balance in mounting brackets, wiring, inverter to connect to the grid, and labor.

Even if the panels were free this would not make any sense, including depreciation and maintenance the total costs would likely exceed the cost of power saved. So as an investment it is a net loser. The only way it is now possible is the local utility is popping for $15,000 rebate, and there will be $8,000 in tax credits. That is, the only way it works is to get ‘’somebody else” to pay for it.

Jul 2, 2009 - 3:31 pm 26. msmalone:

Sorry about missing Karlgaard’s links, folks. Working late on my ABC/Edgelings/Pajamas column and completely missed them. They are now inserted.

Mike Malone
Editor-in-Chie

Jul 2, 2009 - 4:03 pm 27. Paul of Alexandria:

There’s a similar article on American Thinker, with a pretty pie chart. Some very good comments there also.

Jul 2, 2009 - 5:24 pm 28. Strawman:

Here are two must reads–the first on clean coal by Gregg Easterbrook, the second on fission energy by Robert Metcalfe. Study them if you take electricity production seriously.

Neither of those articles say why you you imply; the Easterbrook article claims that “clean coal” (a term that has several context-sensitive meanings) technology is ready to go. This is nonsense. Commercializing a process of that scale requires several iterations of pilot plants, each several times larger than the previous. Nobody is going to build something like that without going through years of scale-up studies.

The Metcalfe article talks about the regulatory hurdles that advanced nuclear designs must pass, but in no way implies that fusion is anywhere near commercialization.

Sorry for being the Grinch who stole Green Utopia. It’s not going to be cotton candy and unicorns. It’s going to be several generation of technology before we get to the ultimate. Technologies that doesn’t even exist today will be obsolete, and their successors will also be obsolete before we finally reach fusion nirvana.

Until then, we need these “bridge” technologies, like better fission reactors. What we don’t need are a bunch of hare-brained final solutions from narcissistic politicians. “Yes, we can” is hubris, if it’s something we haven’t done before.

Drilling the continental shelf, OTOH…

Jul 2, 2009 - 5:27 pm 29. Strawman:

Oops, I thought he said “fusion”. Never mind.

Jul 2, 2009 - 5:28 pm 30. Paul of Alexandria:

Paul -Indiana (8):

Another side to this wind-solar hoax is this. We have been told that the electrical grid needs to be improved to move that power to where it can be used. There is no point in doing that considering the putative size of its contribution. Use it locally where it is produced.

Problem: take a look at Figure 2 in the American Thinker article. Most of the wind is around the coasts; but the places that need the power aren’t. Our society depends on a unified power grid to move power around over long distances.

Some thoughts (someone on American Thinker pointed out that it takes about 2600 1.5 MW wind turbines to match one 1 GW nuclear power plant, taking into account wind and efficiency variations):

1) Economy of scale. One large nuclear/coal plant will always be more cost effective, more efficient, and require less maintenance than 2600 windmills for the same reason that a diesel locomotive gets better gas milage/ton than the automobiles that can carry the same load collected together. This is simple engineering reality.

2) Wiring. Power lines not only require (expensive) copper and utility towers, they require right-of-way and regular maintenance. Even though the lines may be somewhat smaller, 2600 windmills still require 2600 times as many power lines as one conventional plant. Even if they’re grouped into farms, there will still be a LOT of power lines.

Here in VA, we’re having problems running one lousy line down Route 66 to meet current need. Nobody wants to see it in their vista.

3) There’s also the matter of coordinating the power frequencies. U.S. power is transmitted at 60 Hz AC, and the generators turn at a proportional speed. Really, really nasty things happen if you connect a generator that is turning at the wrong phase and/or frequency to a grid (like generators-melting type nasty). Which would you prefer: to synchronize a half-dozen or so generators in a conventional plant, or 2600 smaller generators. (I’m not saying that it can’t be done, but it’s a lot harder).

4) Finally, there’s the matter of power storage. Wind – like solar – is sporadic. The only practical solution is to store the power (millions of megaWatt-hours) somewhere to level out the supply. The best way to do this, to date, is via hydroelectric storage: you use the wind-power to pump water into a lake, then draw it out through turbines as necessary. Of course this presents its own ecological problems.

Jul 2, 2009 - 5:33 pm 31. IndependentDem:

Strawman, #13:
“The Saudis want us to cripple our coal industry, but not oil imports. They got exactly what they wanted.”

Exactly, and Obama’s largest supporters will get exactly what they want, while prices skyrocket for everyone. This will the legacy of the “Taxman-Malarkey” bill.

Jul 3, 2009 - 6:49 am 32. myth buster:

If there is any upside to this bill, it’s that even if it does become law, it will not do so without major modifications in the Senate, not the least of which involves nuclear. Besides that, at the very least it will stay out of the nuclear industry’s way. Since nuclear plants produce CO2 only for the purposes of construction and transporting fuel, the price of allowances will do little to harm them. Meanwhile, the higher price of electricity increases the nuclear plant’s profits. This will catalyze the nuclear renaissance whether the politicians want it to or not.

Jul 3, 2009 - 12:48 pm 33. Conservative Mom:

It’s amazing how we never get any trolls on the science/math/logic columns and comments. I wonder why?

Jul 3, 2009 - 1:35 pm 34. Strawman:

32, good luck with that. You wouldn’t happen to be in the market for a bridge by any chance, would you?

Jul 3, 2009 - 1:47 pm 35. Tomp:

St. Elizabeths anyone? Many canidates available, all but eight with ‘D” after their name.

Jul 3, 2009 - 8:18 pm 36. G. Clarke:

# 10 Moogie — “Well over half our population has no idea what the Waxman-Markey bill is.”

I do believe that half has to include all the congressmen and -women who voted for it. I can’t conceive anyone understanding it and still voting for it, even if they wanted more government power. Impoverishing the richest nation in history that could easily double its wealth in 20 years is not the way to get power. It is only the way to advance backwards towards fuedalism. All that power those dukes and earls had was not all that it was cracked up to be, if you check out how many ended their days with thier necks on a block.

Jul 5, 2009 - 3:38 pm 37. Old Soldier:

Strawman: You are right that generators only use natural gas for peaking power. Most peakers can burn natural gas OR oil – depending on which is currently cheaper.

They are basically big jet engines and are easy to turn off and on when needed. But, they are too small and not nearly efficient enough to replace coal for base load.

Jul 6, 2009 - 4:51 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: