We Shouldn't Be Surprised Renewables Make Energy Expensive Since That's Always Been The Greens' Goal

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

3 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

I moved to San Marcos, Texas in 2015. The energy co-op was Bluebonnet, and they were charging me 8 cents per Kwh.

After a year I looked up the 'all-green' option to see what they would charge me for wind generated electricity. When I subscribed, my new rate was 8.5 cents per Kwh. When I had been living in Austin the tiered structure meant that I was paying 11 cents per Khw for anything over 500Kwh per month. However, gas prices had collapsed in 2014 - the Austin costs were pre-2014, the San Marcos prices post 2014.

The attached satellite image shows how much area has been 'torn up' by oil rigs in the Permian basin. If this were paved over with either wind turbines or solar panels, it would be enough to power the entire US.

Very flawed perception of  what happens in an "oilfield" from start to finish. The initial drilling work is placed by a very small foot print of pump jacks or other types of wells, some infrastructure and gathering, separation, fractionation and other equipment , tank batteries etc.

With pad drilling , even the initial impetus of exploration and drilling is very limited as it relates to surface "use and disturbance". Once drilling and completion operations are completed all those equipment are gone and the surface lands are more or less reclaimed to the original status except for the small foot print of the wells etc. Solar panels and wind turbines are long term large surface area impact events.

The oil patch isnt dotted with nodding donkeys and derricks every 5ft or so from each other as seen in images from back in the day.

 

[Red + 252]

14 hours ago, markslawson said:

Red - wow, how do you manage to overlook the huge problems with your own statements, as well as ignore the pile of evidence that German's clean energy effort has failed dismally..

Try backing your claims with actual evidence and not mere commentary.

I showed the principal cause of Germany's rise in prices were due to a specific policy which subsequently led to prices being stable over the past 6 years.  And I showed the price increases were not as originally claimed by Shellenberger - indeed, far from it.

Germany set itself more ambitious targets than the EU, and did so bak in 2007.  It's at least trying hard to achieve them, which is lot more than can be said of much of the rest of the world.

With regard to CO2 emissions for example, Germany is at about the same level as it was when it started WWII, and not too many industrialised countries can make that claim. 

So let's go back to one if the points made by Shellenberger in the original linked article:

• Six years later, the evidence that solar and wind are increasing electricity prices in the real world, often without reducing emissions, is piling up.

I clearly live on a different planet to you when it comes to offering evidence.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

Germany is a classic case of the phrase, lies, damned lies, and statistics.  Everytime the wind blows and sun shines, they claim all the "renewable" power while exporting the power from their STILL OPERATING coal, NG fired power plants to neighboring countries.  Same goes for Denmark and Netherlands, neither of whom can operate for 1 day on wind power without France stabilizing the grid with Nuclear and Norway with its NG and hydro. 

Lies, damned lies, and statistics. 

As for the cost; that is more lies, damned lies, and statistics as there are massive subsidies for the industry that do not even show up in their price.  Also, price varies for industry compared to residential by at least 2:1(real numbers are not exactly forthcoming).  If industry had to pay residential cost or even close, there would be NO heavy industry in Germany at all, yet they have plenty of it compared to their neighbors with "cheaper" electricity prices.  And, NO, it has nothing to do with efficiency as everyone in the world has the same ~efficient heavy industry. 

Lies, damned lies, and statistics. 

[Red + 252]

44 minutes ago, Wastral said:

Lies, damned lies, and statistics. 

It's one thing to say that, and another to present a cogent case.

If you are a householder in Germany then your electricity prices have been stable for the past 6 years.  If that is not the case, what do you rely upon?

As for Germany's energy mix, it's no secret.  Nor is its plan to change that mix, which is progressing slower than the target case it set out in 2007.

It is true that industry gets cheaper electricity, but that's the case in most markets because industry can  enter into supply contracts which are "negotiable".

Germany is a relatively high wage economy with comparatively high energy prices, yet remains the industrial powerhouse of Europe.  They just might be doing something right given they have occupied that position for quite some time.

[Meredith Poor + 883]

11 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Nope, not even close.

Explain. Do the math.

[Meredith Poor + 883]

8 hours ago, ceo_energemsier said:

Very flawed perception of  what happens in an "oilfield" from start to finish. The initial drilling work is placed by a very small foot print of pump jacks or other types of wells, some infrastructure and gathering, separation, fractionation and other equipment , tank batteries etc.

With pad drilling , even the initial impetus of exploration and drilling is very limited as it relates to surface "use and disturbance". Once drilling and completion operations are completed all those equipment are gone and the surface lands are more or less reclaimed to the original status except for the small foot print of the wells etc. Solar panels and wind turbines are long term large surface area impact events.

The oil patch isnt dotted with nodding donkeys and derricks every 5ft or so from each other as seen in images from back in the day.

 

You mean, like this? Is the intervening land (between the well pads) all that useful for any other purpose?

Edited June 4, 2019 by Meredith Poor
Expand on the reply.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

26 minutes ago, Meredith Poor said:

You mean, like this? Is the intervening land (between the well pads) all that useful for any other purpose?

Yes, as 90% of the land is still free even in the worst obsolete drilling techniques from 2005 with tiny laterals(400-->600ft) we are now at miles.  Likewise maybe you need to see an ophthalmologist for land use scaling calibration... 

[Red + 252]

30 minutes ago, Meredith Poor said:

Explain. Do the math.

Tom was probably right, but more likely for the wrong reason.

Way back in 2007 the US Dep't of Energy did the maths and it required about 60,000 square kilometres, compared to the mapped 133,000 in your graphic. 

Doing the maths will lead to different outcomes depending on starting assumptions, so here's a few other ideas on how little land area is needed.  Being out by over 100,000 square kilometres in your case seems a blessing 😉.

 

[Meredith Poor + 883]

1 hour ago, Wastral said:

Yes, as 90% of the land is still free even in the worst obsolete drilling techniques from 2005 with tiny laterals(400-->600ft) we are now at miles.  Likewise maybe you need to see an ophthalmologist for land use scaling calibration... 

I'll assume, for purposes of discussion, that you have a yard. The 'typical' yard has 50 feet of street frontage and a depth of 100 feet. Lets assume you have an empty lot on which you might build a house. 500 square feet (10% of 5000 square feet) is taken up with some 'foreign' infrastructure, whether an oil well, coal mine, electricity transmission tower, or chicken coop. Are you going to build a house on the remaining 4500 square feet? Is the issue related to the size of the 'pad', or the need for access by whoever is operating that facility, along with noise, smell, runoff, etc.?

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 6/1/2019 at 5:42 PM, markslawson said:

I certainly agree with much of the article linked but I disagree with the contention that the greens are deliberately making energy more expensive for no reduction in emissions as part of some grander plan. For them, and I've argued with a few greens over the years, renewables are good because they harness energy without burning fossil fuels and anyone who points out the major problems of using them must be in the pay of sinister energy companies.  If emissions don't fall after a heap of renewables have been connected up then the obvious solution is to connect more. Power prices going up? That must be because the electricity companies are using renewables to rip-off consumers. In other words, major problems are just brushed off with excuses or simply ignored. Those guys genuinely believe that they are doing us all a power of good, and no amount of reality is going to shake that belief.

 

On 6/1/2019 at 5:20 PM, ceo_energemsier said:

We Shouldn't Be Surprised Renewables Make Energy Expensive Since That's Always Been The Greens' Goal

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/05/27/we-shouldnt-be-surprised-renewables-make-energy-expensive-since-thats-always-been-the-greens-goal/?fbclid=IwAR2whcbvAD1DJ5a5q_pTAMbppzZndvBksnOdLRbgZknFV96J_rbSirHB4mk#39ed29c64e6d

 

The Green Parties around the world are basically watermelon groups. Green on the outside and red on the inside. To verify that just take a careful look at the various party platforms. I really don't think they want expensive energy, they are just too ignorant to realize that is what their energy policy leads to. What they really want is socialism by a different name. Serious digging would find lots of connections to the far left. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 6/2/2019 at 3:07 PM, NickW said:

I'm not anti nuclear although I think the economics of renewables is increasingly making nuclear look like a lost opportunity in that it had its time but has been superceded by the falling cost of renewables. 

There is probably still a place for nuclear, particularly cold, heavily populated countries without the space or natural resources to develop renewables on the sort of scale needed.

The UK, Belgium, Germany (haha), South korea are a few that come to mind. 

 

 

Natural gas is a better choice. Also much more politically acceptable. Not to mine, but to use.