The Energy Thread

[Uncle Ted]

Obama claims that wind power is cheaper in Texas than power from oil and coal... and he is right (when the wind is blowing):

Barack Obama says wind power cheaper in Texas than power from 'dirty fossil fuels'

Barack Obama, exhorting Dallas Democrats during a March 2016 Texas swing, called Republican claims that the country and planet are in sorry shape a "false narrative."


"America is pretty darn great right now," the Democratic president said.


And among great things, Obama said, Democrats believe in science and that climate change is real -- and that wind is a better bargain in Texas than traditional oil and gas.


Come again? "Right now, here in Texas," Obama said, "wind power is already cheaper than dirty fossil fuels."

Wind power sure has sizzle. In 2015, PolitiFact in Washington, D.C., found Mostly True Obama’s claim that "America is No. 1 in wind power." China led in overall wind-power capacity but the U.S. was generating more electricity from the wind. Earlier, in 2010, we rated True a declaration that Texas had "installed more wind power than any other state, and all but four countries." As of 2009, Texas boasted 9,410 megawatts of wind power — enough to power two million homes.


More recently, FactCheck.org, based at the University of Pennsylvania, dug into Obama’s claim in his 2016 State of the Union address that "in fields from Iowa to Texas, wind power is now cheaper than dirtier, conventional power." Nationally, average coal and gas prices were running less than average wind power costs. Yet in Iowa and Texas, wind energy proved cheaper, according to an Energy Information Administration analyst.


Meantime, an American Wind Energy Association blog post talking up Obama’s Iowa-Texas SOTU claim noted a 2015 study by Lazard LLC, a financial services firm, stating the cost of wind production in Texas, not counting government subsidies, runs from $36 to $51 per megawatt-hour while an average national cost for coal-fired electricity ranges from $65 to $150 per MWh and for gas, depending on the type of plant, from $52/MWh to $218/MWh.
[...]
Wind-generated electricity is offered for sale in Texas at lower prices than power fired by coal or natural gas. Unsaid: wind power, unlike electricity fueled by oil or gas, isn’t always available.


We rate Obama’s claim True.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/stat...texas-power-d/



http://cleantechnica.com/2015/04/13/...-power-prices/

Of course, storing that power generated from wind (e.g., with battery storage for when the wind isn't blowing) makes it very expensive.

[creekster]

Never trust anyone that thinks they know where crude prices are headed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

thats right up there with never fight a land war in central asia.

[Moliere]

Never trust anyone that thinks they know where crude prices are headed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Uncle Ted]

Gee, oil is at $43 dollars a barrell. I remember when it dipped below $30 and Goldman Sachs and Jim Cramer (and others) were saying it was going to $20 and maybe below.

I remember when oil hit $150 and they said it was going to go over $200. I don't think it went higher than $150. It is a good thing they don't follow their own advice.(that's a joke and not meant in any derrogatory way to Goldman Sachs).

I think folks like Cramer, Dent, etc. say sh*t to sell advertising, books, newsletters, and other crap and Goldman Sachs says sh*t to sell investment products that no one else will buy.

I remember Dent pushing his book about the "Roaring 2000's" and was saying the Dow was going to break 20,000. Now he is saying that the market is heading to the sh*tter and the Dow is headed below 5,000. Dent is usually so wrong that it seems best to bet against any prediction he makes.

[byu71]

Gee, oil is at $43 dollars a barrell. I remember when it dipped below $30 and Goldman Sachs and Jim Cramer (and others) were saying it was going to $20 and maybe below.

I remember when oil hit $150 and they said it was going to go over $200. I don't think it went higher than $150. It is a good thing they don't follow their own advice.(that's a joke and not meant in any derrogatory way to Goldman Sachs).

[Mormon Red Death]

Maybe because the fossil fuel companies don't want anything to come from it? (Follow the money trail to the politicians' campaign funds and super PACs.)

This idea seems cool but it may suffer from similar problems that wind power generation has: e.g., "bursty" power generation (and lack of a good way to store power), mechanical failure issues, transmission issues (i.e. good wind sites are often located in remote locations, away from the consumers of the energy), etc.

My money is on nuclear fusion and "safe" nuclear fission. Of course, it seems the politicians (especially the dems) think nuclear is a dirty word.

My money is on the graphene

[Bo Diddley]

I guess I could be wrong, but I don't think they want our help.

No, you're probably right. I doubt they want our help. Take a look at the help we've given them over the past 100 years or so. Maybe it's time to take a new approach.

[byu71]

Why do you think we need to force them? That's the last thing we should try to do.

I guess I could be wrong, but I don't think they want our help.

[Bo Diddley]

That is a great thought and idea. Now how do we force them to accept that help?

Why do you think we need to force them? That's the last thing we should try to do.

[byu71]

We should be working to help them move to other sectors of business, and working to educate the masses. We want them to be productive partners, not in a state of turmoil.

That is a great thought and idea. Now how do we force them to accept that help?

If I am not mistaken you are a Hillary or Bernie supporter?

[Bo Diddley]

It would be great if something came along and replaced fossil fuel. Can you imagine the turmoil in the Middle East if these countries couldn't placate the masses with their subsidies to their citizens?

I think Donald should wait until that happens to become President. If that situation should occur with the Middle East countries being broke, we will need him.

We should be working to help them move to other sectors of business, and working to educate the masses. We want them to be productive partners, not in a state of turmoil.

[byu71]

It would be great if something came along and replaced fossil fuel. Can you imagine the turmoil in the Middle East if these countries couldn't placate the masses with their subsidies to their citizens?

I think Donald should wait until that happens to become President. If that situation should occur with the Middle East countries being broke, we will need him.

[Uncle Ted]

Whoa. This looks really cool.

https://www.facebook.com/HuffingtonP...3808267231130/

We need a few of these things to pan out. You read about stuff like this all the time, but then it seems like nothing ever comes of it.

Maybe because the fossil fuel companies don't want anything to come from it? (Follow the money trail to the politicians' campaign funds and super PACs.)

This idea seems cool but it may suffer from similar problems that wind power generation has: e.g., "bursty" power generation (and lack of a good way to store power), mechanical failure issues, transmission issues (i.e. good wind sites are often located in remote locations, away from the consumers of the energy), etc.

My money is on nuclear fusion and "safe" nuclear fission. Of course, it seems the politicians (especially the dems) think nuclear is a dirty word.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Whoa. This looks really cool.

https://www.facebook.com/HuffingtonP...3808267231130/

We need a few of these things to pan out. You read about stuff like this all the time, but then it seems like nothing ever comes of it.

[Uncle Ted]

For First Time, Majority in U.S. Oppose Nuclear Energy

For the first time since Gallup first asked the question in 1994, a majority of Americans say they oppose nuclear energy. The 54% opposing it is up significantly from 43% a year ago, while the 44% who favor using nuclear energy is down from 51%.


[...]
Lower gasoline prices over the past year are likely driving greater opposition toward the use of nuclear power. As Americans have paid less at the pump, their level of worry about the nation's energy situation has dropped to 15-year-low levels. This appears to have resulted in more Americans prioritizing environmental protection and fewer backing nuclear power as an alternative energy source.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/190064/fi...ar-energy.aspx


And democrats largely continue to not embrace the science that could stop global warming...

Democrats and Republicans Less Likely to Favor Nuclear Energy


Republicans continue to be more likely than Democrats and independents to be in favor of nuclear energy. Still, support for the use of nuclear energy among Republicans and Democrats has declined in comparison to 2015. A slight majority of Republicans, 53%, are in favor of nuclear energy, down significantly from 68% last year. One in three Democrats, 34%, favor it, down from 42% in 2015. Independents' support is essentially unchanged from last year, but is down from the high Gallup found in 2010.

Thanks Bernie Sanders and the rest of you damn hippies!