Who Will Foot The $40-Trillion Energy Transition Bill?

[Meredith Poor + 883]

$40 trillion divided by 30 years = $1,333,333,333,333 per year.

$1.3 trillion divided by 4 billion working age adults = $333 per year. Per-capita utility costs for most American households is $1200 ($100 per month) plus $80 a month for gasoline.

If this 'only' costs $40 trillion we're getting off cheap.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

Lets do some simple math: Lets just do NA/EU Population ~900Million.  Roughly 3 persons perhoushold(yea it is lower, but I like round numbers) = 300Million households who all need solar roofs($30k) + charger for Ecar($1000) + Battery bank($10k-->$420k) , HVAC for heating($5k),and assume they have the space to put all this new infrastructure...

So, 300,000,000 * ($20k +$1k+10k+ $5k =~$30k~$40k) = ~$10Trillion with zero backup and production for non sunny days, and does nothing for the largest energy hog, industrial, commercial... This alone doubles if not triples the cost and in many ways.

So, for less than 1 Billion people, not counting the vehicles, the "developed world" will require 30Trillion if not the whole $40Trillion as you have to connect everything with backup. 

Don't worry, just need something for the other 6 to 7 Billion people...

[Boat + 1,315]

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/electricity.php

See the steady rise of renewables at almost no cost. Why? The FF they are replacing are just as expensive or more. What is not calculated are the added health costs from FF. 
How will the Biden election accelerate these positive changes? We’ll see in 4 years.

Edited December 4, 2020 by Boat

[Meredith Poor + 883]

7 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Lets do some simple math: Lets just do NA/EU Population ~900Million.  Roughly 3 persons perhoushold(yea it is lower, but I like round numbers) = 300Million households who all need solar roofs($30k) + charger for Ecar($1000) + Battery bank($10k-->$420k) , HVAC for heating($5k),and assume they have the space to put all this new infrastructure...

So, 300,000,000 * ($20k +$1k+10k+ $5k =~$30k~$40k) = ~$10Trillion with zero backup and production for non sunny days, and does nothing for the largest energy hog, industrial, commercial... This alone doubles if not triples the cost and in many ways.

So, for less than 1 Billion people, not counting the vehicles, the "developed world" will require 30Trillion if not the whole $40Trillion as you have to connect everything with backup. 

Don't worry, just need something for the other 6 to 7 Billion people...

$40K divided by 25 year lifespan = $3,333 per year, or given your household size $1,111 per person per year. What I've found (from selling solar to homes) is that energy consumption is largely a function of number of bodies, so each person needs about 1 Mwh per month for their home. 3 people will therefore consume 10 cents x 1000 Kwh = $100 x 3, or $300 per month. Times 12 this is $3600 per year.

Assuming gas at $2 per gallon x 40 miles per day of driving (40 x 360 days = 14,400 miles per year). 14,400 divided by 30 mpg = 480 gallons, times $2 = $960 per year. $960 x 2 drivers = $1920, then add $3600 to get $5520.

To the extent this math is correct, renewables have lots of room to wiggle.

[frankfurter + 562]

23 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

$40K divided by 25 year lifespan = $3,333 per year, or given your household size $1,111 per person per year. What I've found (from selling solar to homes) is that energy consumption is largely a function of number of bodies, so each person needs about 1 Mwh per month for their home. 3 people will therefore consume 10 cents x 1000 Kwh = $100 x 3, or $300 per month. Times 12 this is $3600 per year.

Assuming gas at $2 per gallon x 40 miles per day of driving (40 x 360 days = 14,400 miles per year). 14,400 divided by 30 mpg = 480 gallons, times $2 = $960 per year. $960 x 2 drivers = $1920, then add $3600 to get $5520.

To the extent this math is correct, renewables have lots of room to wiggle.

obviously, you have no sensitivity to the people in this world who survive on less than $2 per day income.

[Meredith Poor + 883]

4 minutes ago, frankfurter said:

obviously, you have no sensitivity to the people in this world who survive on less than $2 per day income.

I did a keyword search on 'middle class in India'. This is what I got (from mint.com):

"Based on all this, she finds that 28% of India’s population is middle class -- of which 14% is lower middle class and about 3% is upper middle class. She finds that while there is significant diversity in the type of jobs among the middle class, a large proportion of the middle class are salaried employees. And most importantly, contrary to the common assumption that the middle class is an urban phenomenon, a considerable segment of the Indian middle class resides in rural areas. More than 32% of the comfortable middle class and more than 23% of the upper middle class are located in rural India."

Given 1.2 billion people in India, 28% would be 336 million. It's doubtful those in the 'lower' middle class pay anything like $5000 a year in energy bills. It's likely that those that are living by 'American' middle class standards probably are.

A lot of what we consider 'third world' lives a lot better off than Westerners (or at least OECD member state citizens) think they do. If roughly 1/3rd of the world's people live at or above 'middle class' standards of living, RE is viable given current fossil fuel capital and operating costs.

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

The hilarity of that is how many nuclear plants (with all the cost overruns included) we could build with $40 trillion. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

At $15 billion per 1000 MWe plant, I'm seeing 2.6 TW of installed capacity. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 12/3/2020 at 6:03 PM, Meredith Poor said:

$40 trillion divided by 30 years = $1,333,333,333,333 per year.

$1.3 trillion divided by 4 billion working age adults = $333 per year. Per-capita utility costs for most American households is $1200 ($100 per month) plus $80 a month for gasoline.

If this 'only' costs $40 trillion we're getting off cheap.

Cost overruns are the norm and are usually two to three times the expected amount. Witness failed nuclear plants and the failure of the medium speed train in California, etc. Then you have to consider the inflation over 30 years. The economies would collapse before then IMHO. It is just plain silly to fix something that isn't really broken. Just use natural gas to replace coal and gradually build up wind and solar in a natural progression. The green fascists are acting like maniacs. Meanwhile sea level rises and falls are very slow as they have been for many thousands of years. Much of America was once under the ocean. Nothing new here. Man has little to do with it. We do need clean air, water, and soil though. "Renewables" have their own pollution problems. 

[Meredith Poor + 883]

6 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Cost overruns are the norm and are usually two to three times the expected amount. Witness failed nuclear plants and the failure of the medium speed train in California, etc. Then you have to consider the inflation over 30 years. The economies would collapse before then IMHO. It is just plain silly to fix something that isn't really broken. Just use natural gas to replace coal and gradually build up wind and solar in a natural progression. The green fascists are acting like maniacs. Meanwhile sea level rises and falls are very slow as they have been for many thousands of years. Much of America was once under the ocean. Nothing new here. Man has little to do with it. We do need clean air, water, and soil though. "Renewables" have their own pollution problems. 

Cost overruns on nuclear are way more than 3x. Most wind and solar projects go in at their budgeted amounts. I'm not aware of cost overruns occurring routinely with those technologies. Most gas and coal plants also go in at their bid price.

Solar prices continue to decline. The attachment below is a screen shot of what appears to me to be a new low at the cell level - 3 cents per watt. This is, of course, FOB China - not all that helpful to Americans. Each time these prices go down, the playing field is increasingly leveled. Businesses in the Philippines or Japan or Chile or other places without natural gas, coal, or hydropower can now get cheap electricity. Even if it isn't 24/7, a lot can be done while the sun is shining.

I've seen some Chinese solar panels at 15 cents per watt. For a homeowner that needs 6Kw of panels, this would cost $900. Again, this assumes a lot of DIY and has nothing to do with inverters, load controllers, etc. It also assumes the Chinese vendors can be trusted.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

6 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

Cost overruns on nuclear are way more than 3x. Most wind and solar projects go in at their budgeted amounts. I'm not aware of cost overruns occurring routinely with those technologies. Most gas and coal plants also go in at their bid price.

Solar prices continue to decline. The attachment below is a screen shot of what appears to me to be a new low at the cell level - 3 cents per watt. This is, of course, FOB China - not all that helpful to Americans. Each time these prices go down, the playing field is increasingly leveled. Businesses in the Philippines or Japan or Chile or other places without natural gas, coal, or hydropower can now get cheap electricity. Even if it isn't 24/7, a lot can be done while the sun is shining.

I've seen some Chinese solar panels at 15 cents per watt. For a homeowner that needs 6Kw of panels, this would cost $900. Again, this assumes a lot of DIY and has nothing to do with inverters, load controllers, etc. It also assumes the Chinese vendors can be trusted.

Thanks for the info Meredith! I am all for it, but hate to see China getting all the business. I buy a lot of Chinese goods though. I want us to trade with other nations also and do more ourselves. I would think that we could make solar cells and panels too. Is a lot of hand work needed? The other issue is the possibility of simplifying installation for the DIY folks. I would like to see all ordinary builders being able to do the job. Bring down total costs and home battery systems, not connect to the grid at all. Build cells on carports, separate garages, etc. Solar tiles seem like the best solution, if you never have to build a roof again! You would think that it would be a no brainer for new homes in the Southwest and most other areas. 

The other problem I fear is getting the government and crony capitalists involved, plus the union mandates, unneeded licenses, permits, and other extraneous costs and taxes. That is why I don't want grandiose government schemes. 

Edited December 7, 2020 by ronwagn
add

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 12/5/2020 at 9:46 AM, Meredith Poor said:

I did a keyword search on 'middle class in India'. This is what I got (from mint.com):

"Based on all this, she finds that 28% of India’s population is middle class -- of which 14% is lower middle class and about 3% is upper middle class. She finds that while there is significant diversity in the type of jobs among the middle class, a large proportion of the middle class are salaried employees. And most importantly, contrary to the common assumption that the middle class is an urban phenomenon, a considerable segment of the Indian middle class resides in rural areas. More than 32% of the comfortable middle class and more than 23% of the upper middle class are located in rural India."

Given 1.2 billion people in India, 28% would be 336 million. It's doubtful those in the 'lower' middle class pay anything like $5000 a year in energy bills. It's likely that those that are living by 'American' middle class standards probably are.

A lot of what we consider 'third world' lives a lot better off than Westerners (or at least OECD member state citizens) think they do. If roughly 1/3rd of the world's people live at or above 'middle class' standards of living, RE is viable given current fossil fuel capital and operating costs.

So, they can certainly afford to buy and install individual solar systems. Why does government need to be involved? Let capitalism work, keep the costs down. India has plenty of savvy people. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

22 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Cost overruns are the norm and are usually two to three times the expected amount. Witness failed nuclear plants and the failure of the medium speed train in California, etc. Then you have to consider the inflation over 30 years. The economies would collapse before then IMHO. It is just plain silly to fix something that isn't really broken. Just use natural gas to replace coal and gradually build up wind and solar in a natural progression. The green fascists are acting like maniacs. Meanwhile sea level rises and falls are very slow as they have been for many thousands of years. Much of America was once under the ocean. Nothing new here. Man has little to do with it. We do need clean air, water, and soil though. "Renewables" have their own pollution problems. 

$15 billion is two to three times the expected amount Ron.  Not sure why you mention inflation, since inflation actually helps to clear debt, not increase it. That is, assuming they adjust their power charge for inflation. If we educate the public on these plants and get regulators to make up their minds about what's safe and what isn't, we'd have a flourishing source of cheap power. Hell, we get 20% of our power from it and it's barely alive. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

On 12/7/2020 at 9:11 AM, Meredith Poor said:

Cost overruns on nuclear are way more than 3x.

You'll notice that I used $15 billion as the cost estimate. We can assume $20 billion (north anna project) and still see an enormous amount of installed 24/7 power. Throw in syngas derivatives and you don't need to replace the ICE. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

12 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

$15 billion is two to three times the expected amount Ron.  Not sure why you mention inflation, since inflation actually helps to clear debt, not increase it. That is, assuming they adjust their power charge for inflation. If we educate the public on these plants and get regulators to make up their minds about what's safe and what isn't, we'd have a flourishing source of cheap power. Hell, we get 20% of our power from it and it's barely alive. 

I mentioned inflation related to economic collapse, at least that was what I was thinking. Our governmental spending is analogous to a runaway train heading for a bridge that has fallen into a ravine. Do you disagree?

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

Just now, ronwagn said:

I mentioned inflation related to economic collapse, at least that was what I was thinking. Our governmental spending is analogous to a runaway train heading for a bridge that has fallen into a ravine. Do you disagree?

Nope. I agree. I failed to make the connection you presented. 

[Meredith Poor + 883]

3 hours ago, ronwagn said:

I mentioned inflation related to economic collapse, at least that was what I was thinking. Our governmental spending is analogous to a runaway train heading for a bridge that has fallen into a ravine. Do you disagree?

I would disagree. When you use the term 'spending', it appears to be in the context of money. Sovereign states 'spend' labor, paying for it with money they print. Can the US government be described as 'spending' labor excessively in the current economic environment, and if so, on what?

[ronwagn + 6,290]

10 minutes ago, Meredith Poor said:

I would disagree. When you use the term 'spending', it appears to be in the context of money. Sovereign states 'spend' labor, paying for it with money they print. Can the US government be described as 'spending' labor excessively in the current economic environment, and if so, on what?

I would say that the overall size of government and military spending could be cut by 25% over a few years. It would be a great help to the citizens in the long run IMHO. We are suffering as citizens of a massive bureaucracy that no longer serves the people but serves its own employees.They are too numerous, overpaid, have too much vacation, retirement, and other benefits compared to the average citizen. They are out of touch with the populace and are strengthening their control of the electorate through maximizing immigration, 17 intelligence agencies, that do not follow the executive but now run themselves according to their own goals. They should have been cut down by JFK as he had planned to do before his assassination, which they may have arranged. Same with RFK. The last four years has seen them complicit in undermining the presidency also. Many of the state governments are facing similar problems. 

 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

I would say that the overall size of government and military spending could be cut by 25% over a few years.

 

Sorry, but it could be cut by 40% next year and should be.  Interior department essentially needs to be eliminated outside of the national parks where all federal land is given back to the states in which it resides.  This eliminates $20B-$3B= national parks = $17B saved and increased usage of our forests by those who actually know and care. 

Eliminate this BS Covid payments, just open everything up, its a virus, if you are old, quarantine yourself in fear.  Minus $2T

Farm program(gargantuan subsidy for large corporate farmers(cut 100%), and in fact the ENTIRE USDA... $141B eliminated.

HUD: 100% eliminate, it is paid for by the states anyways, why have a 2nd layer of idiocy? $32B saved

Education department which has ZERO children it educates 100% eliminate ($70B)

Department of Homeland security can be 100% removed as well.  Just fine before 9/11, put locked cockpit doors on... guess what?  Doesn't matter how many guns/knives idiots bring on, can't be used as missiles.  And frees up Billions of hours wasted at airports. $40B

Department of Energy... actually does have some function, but is horrifically bloated at $30B and could easily be cut in half unless they are finally going to fund fast breeder reactors to, get this: Eat most of our piled up nuclear waste while making power at the same time... gee what a thought...  solve a problem and create a benefit... nah, can't do that!

Department of Commerce can likewise easily be cut in half and yes, it has some function but very little, so $10B goes to $5B if not $1B or less. 

Eliminate AMTRAK $2B down the toilet

Department of state can be cut in half and stop acting they should run our foreign affairs.  $47B--> goes to $30B

All the thousands of "commissions" can all be eliminated and no one would know the difference.

Oh yea, and the entire CIA can all kiss off and retire.  ~$60B

Total so far: ~$400B and this without blinking and I only tackled some of the obvious departments. 

Rest can come out of the Big 4 for a balanced budget with a $100B surplus to pay down the debt.  The Big 4 which everyone actually cares about: DoD, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security

And gasp: raise taxes import/export tariffs, to get a surplus and pay down debt.  And stop printing $$$.  All at the same time.  Yes, this will crash the world economy of dictators/oligarchs as all nations with similar laws etc will not have said tariffs etc and selfish assholes in USA who wish to use Slave Labor in foreign countries cannot do so economically. 

 

[Meredith Poor + 883]

3 hours ago, ronwagn said:

I would say that the overall size of government and military spending could be cut by 25% over a few years. It would be a great help to the citizens in the long run IMHO. We are suffering as citizens of a massive bureaucracy that no longer serves the people but serves its own employees.They are too numerous, overpaid, have too much vacation, retirement, and other benefits compared to the average citizen. They are out of touch with the populace and are strengthening their control of the electorate through maximizing immigration, 17 intelligence agencies, that do not follow the executive but now run themselves according to their own goals. They should have been cut down by JFK as he had planned to do before his assassination, which they may have arranged. Same with RFK. The last four years has seen them complicit in undermining the presidency also. Many of the state governments are facing similar problems. 

 

Can you describe the amount of time you've spent in government employment, including military service? What were your roles, if any?

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

1 hour ago, Meredith Poor said:

Can you describe the amount of time you've spent in government employment, including military service? What were your roles, if any?

Ah, you are angling from the "authority" circular jerk "logic" so you can ignore an argument. 👍

[Meredith Poor + 883]

57 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Ah, you are angling from the "authority" circular jerk "logic" so you can ignore an argument. 👍

When I see something like "We are suffering as citizens of a massive bureaucracy that no longer serves the people but serves its own employees." I get the feeling the author has never worked in any government capacity. However, rather than assert that and be proved wrong, I'm asking ronwagn to explain what his (presumably) government experience is or was. A first step in a discussion like this is to get some clarity. I can identify some situations where his claim is demonstrably true - the rigid California teacher's seniority system had to be thrown out by the courts in order to get fixed. However, this piles a vast number of people in one basket, and a lot of them don't belong in it.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

23 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

Can you describe the amount of time you've spent in government employment, including military service? What were your roles, if any?

I have a B.A. in Political Science and Public Administration an M.A. in Education/Counseling and a RN. I served three years in the United States Army as a Senior Medial Aidman during the Vietnam Era. Now you can give me your info. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

22 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

When I see something like "We are suffering as citizens of a massive bureaucracy that no longer serves the people but serves its own employees." I get the feeling the author has never worked in any government capacity. However, rather than assert that and be proved wrong, I'm asking ronwagn to explain what his (presumably) government experience is or was. A first step in a discussion like this is to get some clarity. I can identify some situations where his claim is demonstrably true - the rigid California teacher's seniority system had to be thrown out by the courts in order to get fixed. However, this piles a vast number of people in one basket, and a lot of them don't belong in it.

I am not speaking of individuals. I am speaking of the bureaucracies and the bloat inherent in that. Our education system, nationwide, is an abysmal failure, when looking at it from a cost benefit ratio compared to other countries. Just about every department of government is comparable to some extent. In fact, we are paying for people to aggravate us rather than provide meaningful benefit. We are also paying for people to spy on our President and his administration and undermine it. I will be happy to argue with you on any of the above. I have plenty of information to present.

Education Problems:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PjW6KJmKDEqqrTVZyGwWK36YTvr46Axo9WDkY90WtU4/edit

[Meredith Poor + 883]

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

I have a B.A. in Political Science and Public Administration an M.A. in Education/Counseling and a RN. I served three years in the United States Army as a Senior Medial Aidman during the Vietnam Era. Now you can give me your info. 

'First responders' put their life on the line all the time. I did a stint with the county I live in (as a county employee) and I was told I was 'essential' (as was everyone in the IT department), so we had to shelter at the county emergency response center in the event of a hurricane. The same goes for the 'solid waste' workers, who were first out the door on cleanup after the weather event passed. Failure to show up was grounds for discipline or termination. Even 'routine' roles ended up taking on a risk to life and limb as a county employee.

Power line maintenance crews are staffed for 'major outage events', meaning tornadoes, ice storms, hurricanes, etc. 'Most of the time' there is more staff than there is work. However, 'most of the time' is not all of the time. See 'California wildfires', Hurricane Harvey, derercho, etc.

If the US could mobilize a significant volunteer civil defense corps., shrinking paid staff might be viable. Volunteers need to take time for training. One of the issues in the US right now is that racial animosity is so high that a significant number of people that could volunteer might be shot by homeowners assuming they are looters.

"I would say that the overall size of government and military spending could be cut by 25% over a few years." Perhaps. However, it's difficult enough as it is to have enough boots on the ground when things get nasty.