We have 50 years left of Oil & Gas reserves, most of which we can't use anyway as we will not be able to breath if we burn it. China is making lots of money on wind turbines and renewables and sadly America is way behind , attached to old fuel and losing a lot of money and jobs in the process.
15
When I can buy or rent a roof top solar system, with storage batteries to recharge my future electric or hybrid car during the night, from Costco, I'm in.
10
Remember US Rep. Bob Inglis? He was the conservative representing the 4th District of South Carolina who was soundly defeated in 2010 by a TEA-Party-supported challenger after Inglis had publicly concluded that the scientific evidence of climate change was sufficient to warrant US policy development to address it. How many gallons of hoax-oops-rain fell this week in SC?
33
Let's not forget about fusion!
5
Is lithium a renewable resource?
6
Major human energy sources:
250,000 AD to 19th Century AD= wood, peat, animal dung
19th Century = wood and coal
20th Century= coal, petroleum, natural gas and nuclear
21st Century= time to transition to wind, solar, nuclear, if necessary, and other 21st Century fuels.
It is called progress.
250,000 AD to 19th Century AD= wood, peat, animal dung
19th Century = wood and coal
20th Century= coal, petroleum, natural gas and nuclear
21st Century= time to transition to wind, solar, nuclear, if necessary, and other 21st Century fuels.
It is called progress.
21
I'll believe Professor Krugman is serious about global warming when he embraces nuclear power. Wind and Solar are great, but we will always need a source of energy for the base load.
19
someday some smart guy in India will invent a cheap solar panel on wheels that will charge an electric car in the driveway. They will be mass-produced in China, shipped to L.A. on a Japanese ship and delivered to Home Depot by Mexican immigrant truckers. And Americans will scoop them up despite the best efforts of Big Oil and the utility industry.
52
"you need to know what’s really at stake." But one person who cannot tell you what's going on is Prof. Krugmn. He is no longer an economist. He is a partisan Democrat who tries to shape economics to fit his "progressive" agenda. He is a ardent statist. A statist is a person who, like Dr. K's mentor, John Maynard Keynes, sincerely believes that, as Keynes said, government spending can turn stone into bread. In other words, for Professors K and K, political government is their god and their religion is Statolatry.
Neither Republicans nor Democrats should have a say in energy policy. No politician should. The only people suited to determine fossil versus wind, etc., are the people who vote with their money in the market place. Without cap and trade, without subsidies (stolen taxpayers' money) for big oil or any alternative, the market is the only arena where a fair and equitable energy "policy" can be made.
As for the climate, anyone stupid enough to want to allow the bozos in Congress to have a say on the climate thinking those idiots wont do far more harm than good haven't been watching what Congress has done in the past nor seen the other bozos running as Dems and Reps for president. Wake up and smell the sewage gas coming out of Washington.
Neither Republicans nor Democrats should have a say in energy policy. No politician should. The only people suited to determine fossil versus wind, etc., are the people who vote with their money in the market place. Without cap and trade, without subsidies (stolen taxpayers' money) for big oil or any alternative, the market is the only arena where a fair and equitable energy "policy" can be made.
As for the climate, anyone stupid enough to want to allow the bozos in Congress to have a say on the climate thinking those idiots wont do far more harm than good haven't been watching what Congress has done in the past nor seen the other bozos running as Dems and Reps for president. Wake up and smell the sewage gas coming out of Washington.
6
Gee. The GOP is the party of billionaires, the status quo, angry white guys, and many vested interests, including banksters, coal, and oil industries. While the future is unlikely to be nice to the older energy industries, they will fight like hell and buy every politician they can to make sure that the transition to sanity and climate stability is as slow and expensive as possible.
Given the apparent inability of the federal government to lead on energy issues, we must work at the state level to make sure that utilities allow distributed solar and wind installations without penalty. This is an area where the profit of the traditional utilities is threatened by forward-thinking individuals and alternative energy installation companies.
Given the apparent inability of the federal government to lead on energy issues, we must work at the state level to make sure that utilities allow distributed solar and wind installations without penalty. This is an area where the profit of the traditional utilities is threatened by forward-thinking individuals and alternative energy installation companies.
15
Way back when, Ralph Nader said oil companies oppose solar energy because they don't own the sun. Still manifestly true.
37
Something about power (pardon...) not being relinquished easily comes to mind...
11
Solar panels can b bought for $1.00 watt retail, and $.50 a watt wholesale. And prices are dropping!
Here in Illinois the nuclear power plants operator, Exelon, is threatening to shut down unless they get a $2.00 per household monthly subsidy.
In California they have surpluse daytime electricity due to solar, now they need storage for nitetime: hello mr elon musk - hows that gigafactory for batteries coming?
Here in Illinois the nuclear power plants operator, Exelon, is threatening to shut down unless they get a $2.00 per household monthly subsidy.
In California they have surpluse daytime electricity due to solar, now they need storage for nitetime: hello mr elon musk - hows that gigafactory for batteries coming?
12
Great focus but wish this article talked about the ways utilities are fighting to squelch rooftop solar in many states, often with the assistance of appointed public utilities commissioners who generally come out of utility corner offices...
19
It'a All about energy see this: http://www.c-span.org/video/?328408-1/house-majority-leader-kevin-mccart...
Thanks Paul Krugman
Thanks Paul Krugman
2
The heart of this story is the comparison with former V.P. Cheney. At the time, we thought that he was one of the most vocal opponents of alternative energies and efforts to save the environment. By today's Republican standards, Cheney was a saint.
It is important that writers such as Mr. Krugman publish examples of how the fossil fuel based energy companies used outright fraud and misrepresentation to convince voters that climate change has nothing to do with their product. I suppose we will eventually get to the point where the masses start to realize something is not quite right with the weather. The folks in South Caroline might appreciate that today.
It is important that writers such as Mr. Krugman publish examples of how the fossil fuel based energy companies used outright fraud and misrepresentation to convince voters that climate change has nothing to do with their product. I suppose we will eventually get to the point where the masses start to realize something is not quite right with the weather. The folks in South Caroline might appreciate that today.
9
Krugman fails to notice that windmills and solar panels are and have been lavishly subsidized by the state and federal governments. One can argue that this is justified on the basis of the common good; however, the folks installing these systems are in the upper few percent, while the taxes supporting the subsidies are paid by everyone, in particular many of those who cannot afford to install such systems, or who are forced to pay higher utility rates.
In addition, we can lump in subsidies for electric and hybrid cars, the additional costs to the consumer of ethanol-adulterated gasoline, increased gasoline taxes to compensate for alternative vehicles, costs to the consumer of cap-and-trade, carpool lanes for the green energy elite, and probably a dozen other subsidies that don't immediately come to mind.
So, in today's world, installation of "alternative energy" constitutes an immense transfer of wealth from the lowest 80% or so to the top echelons of the economic pecking order. It's just not so good for oil companies and their minions. Maybe in tomorrow's world, it will benefit everyone, but not in today's world.
In addition, we can lump in subsidies for electric and hybrid cars, the additional costs to the consumer of ethanol-adulterated gasoline, increased gasoline taxes to compensate for alternative vehicles, costs to the consumer of cap-and-trade, carpool lanes for the green energy elite, and probably a dozen other subsidies that don't immediately come to mind.
So, in today's world, installation of "alternative energy" constitutes an immense transfer of wealth from the lowest 80% or so to the top echelons of the economic pecking order. It's just not so good for oil companies and their minions. Maybe in tomorrow's world, it will benefit everyone, but not in today's world.
5
Our country needs more nuclear power, which does not produce carbon dioxide. We should embrace nuclear power because regardless of what we do we have nuclear sites storing nuclear waste, and that will continue because we cannot transport it to go under a mountain out West. To keep nuclear power safe, we need engineering and geologic expertise, much of which no longer exists in Universities as training programs. We should make a survey of current sites and carefully evaluate them for safety concerns, and upgrade and repair and expand where possible.
10
Another attempt by Krugman to make the Democrats energy policy look like an optimal alternative to the ridiculous Republican policies. True, the Republicans want to go all out on oil, coal and natural gas, regardless of the economic consequences. But the Democrat's "all of the above" energy policy in effect says, let's go all out on oil, natural gas, coal and implement some renewables - but not enough to upset the energy sector.
Both parties are leading us to environmental collapse, and we are way past the point in which we can cheerlead for the party that is less backward than the other party.
Both parties are leading us to environmental collapse, and we are way past the point in which we can cheerlead for the party that is less backward than the other party.
4
Mr. Krugman is once again so far off the mark I don't know where to begin. According to the eia.gov statistics, 7% of the energy in the U.S. is produced by 'renewable' sources. Strangely, they do not include hydro power in that number, but I suppose that is because they know the environmentalist dominated EPA would never allow a new hydro power plant to be built, and so it is excluded as 'old energy'. 39% is produced by coal, 27% by natural gas, 19% by nuclear, and 6% hydro, So, one could say that electric cars are actually coal fired in many parts of the country.
This has less to do with 'big-old-energy' lobbyists than it does with the practically of it being substantially cheaper to produce electricity with coal or NG than with solar or wind. The only 'threats' to either coal or NG industries are completely the creation of statist's like Krugman and his loyal flock via 'big government regulations'. There is simply no comparison in cost. It is (or would be - without smothering regulations) far cheaper to produce electricity via coal & NG than wind or solar and it is also far more dependable. If fact, every producer of wind and solar power is required to be backed up by coal/NG because of it's lack of dependability.
BTW - Is there any 'renewable' energy source that would allow commercial airline travel to exist?
This has less to do with 'big-old-energy' lobbyists than it does with the practically of it being substantially cheaper to produce electricity with coal or NG than with solar or wind. The only 'threats' to either coal or NG industries are completely the creation of statist's like Krugman and his loyal flock via 'big government regulations'. There is simply no comparison in cost. It is (or would be - without smothering regulations) far cheaper to produce electricity via coal & NG than wind or solar and it is also far more dependable. If fact, every producer of wind and solar power is required to be backed up by coal/NG because of it's lack of dependability.
BTW - Is there any 'renewable' energy source that would allow commercial airline travel to exist?
11
Imagine if Big Oil had to finance its own Army to ensure Middle East oil access? Without British and US military might would we have ever had Anglo/American oil companies with huge assets in Muslim countries? Doubtful. The CIA did not oust Mossedegh for kicks. He was ready to nationalize oil in Iran. The blowback from ousting him is still felt today Any talk about how Fossil fuel is market and renewable's are govt supported is laughable.
32
Keep in mind Big Energy is already turning the tide against alternative energy. Utilities across the country are imposing "access" fees. While you can make a reasonable argument that those using solar should share in infrastructure costs since they use electricity from the grid when their panels are not generating (at nite, for example) the costs imposed are not meant to be reasonable but to make solar an impractically costly alternative.
20
It's just not that hard. Six years ago, I had a 3.5 KW solar array installed. It has already paid for itself while flawlessly churning out electricity day in and day out without a single moving part. It produces about half our electricity. Two years ago I installed a solar hot water heater. The tank gets so hot that you can barely touch it when you pull the insulation back, even in the spring and fall. Two months ago, we bought a used (all-electric) Leaf with 16,000 miles for $11,500. We use it for getting around town or travelling to nearby towns and use a gasoline powered car for longer trips. Lastly, we pay a little bit more for our electricity to support our utility's renewable energy development program. I am not rich, just average middle class. I have had no trouble affording renewable, clean energy. In fact, I come out ahead in the long run financially. We would all come out ahead if more and more and more of us did the same. It's just not that hard.
54
Quite a few posters contrast subsidies to fossil fuels with subsidies to renewable energy. It would be good to see a real breakdown of this. The World Bank recently published a report on fossil fuel subsidies. The US supposedly provided a 680 billion dollar subsidy to fossil fuels, Canada 34 billion (about half per capita), and European countries minimal subsidy. However, the breakdown is revealing. In Canada, for example, only $242 million (scheduled to be reduced to $ 71 million in 2017 ) consisted of targeted direct subsidies, and another $600 million or so consisted of fairly standard corporate tax deferrals, etc. available to other businesses. Most of the rest of the 34 billion consisted of indirect public costs of fossil fuels that were not being paid for by fossil fuel producers or consumers. Targeted subsidies, in other words, are actually pretty minuscule, especially compared to other industries governments choose to subsidize. I doubt the US is much different, though I may be wrong. The big difference is whether indirect costs are "subsidized" through low taxation, whether carbon taxes, cap and trade, or just plain government taxes at the pump. The pump price of gasoline in Europe is roughly twice what it is in Canada and four times what it is in the US, pretty much proportional to the per capita subsidy in indirect costs. Of course renewables such as hydro themselves have indirect costs and taxation deferrals. Concrete comparisons would be good.
8
"the article contained major factual errors, and its author ... was the ... Koch professor at Utah State, and a fellow of a Koch- and ExxonMobil-backed think tank."
As the demand for mega donations goes up, so does the political cost. Soon big money will demand no taxes for them. The obvious fix is public funding for campaigns--limited private donations.
After all corporations are polities too; selling out to them is like selling out to foreign governments, both national and multinational.
But the buying and selling-out of academia is a less obvious and more insidious corruption. The obvious fix is the same.
Otherwise democracy degenerates into plutocracy--including the judiciary--which is not supposed to be meritocratic not democratic. Jurists should be learned in law--all branches--common law as well as constitutional. Separation of powers is crucial not only for oversight and accountability, but for knowledge-based vs popular decision making.
Knowledge and competence are the natural bases of authority and deference--parents, teachers, academic researchers, the professions. Political and economic authority can be wildly unnatural--monarchs, bosses and Bushes--and galling.
Academia like the judiciary must be meritocratic and separate.
It replaces the Clergy in the feudal "Estates of the Realm"--because natural law replaced god-law. The 1% replaced the Nobles--those with great inherited wealth. Commoners remain those who must be lead--by nobles and clergy.
As the demand for mega donations goes up, so does the political cost. Soon big money will demand no taxes for them. The obvious fix is public funding for campaigns--limited private donations.
After all corporations are polities too; selling out to them is like selling out to foreign governments, both national and multinational.
But the buying and selling-out of academia is a less obvious and more insidious corruption. The obvious fix is the same.
Otherwise democracy degenerates into plutocracy--including the judiciary--which is not supposed to be meritocratic not democratic. Jurists should be learned in law--all branches--common law as well as constitutional. Separation of powers is crucial not only for oversight and accountability, but for knowledge-based vs popular decision making.
Knowledge and competence are the natural bases of authority and deference--parents, teachers, academic researchers, the professions. Political and economic authority can be wildly unnatural--monarchs, bosses and Bushes--and galling.
Academia like the judiciary must be meritocratic and separate.
It replaces the Clergy in the feudal "Estates of the Realm"--because natural law replaced god-law. The 1% replaced the Nobles--those with great inherited wealth. Commoners remain those who must be lead--by nobles and clergy.
8
The results of maintaining the status quo in energy can be seen in South Carolina right now, with yet another of those it-only-happens-every-thousand-years storms.
12
Professor Krugman neglected to mention that fracking requires a great deal of water. Quite a lot of fracking is done in Western states that do not receive sufficient rainfall to replenish their diminishing aquifers, which are already being mined to support agricultural irrigation.
12
Solar, without subsidies, isn't economically viable unless Power is at $.80-$.90 per kilowatt hour
Until electricity reaches roughly 80 to 90 cents per kWh solar cannot be cost effective without government and ratepayer subsidies. And no one is addressing the huge amount of surface area required to produce material amounts of baseload power nor the storage of it. Furthermore given this huge surface area and the amount of PV panels needed to produce it, one must consider the life expectancy of both the panels and the storage devices. A nuclear or coal fired generating plant is designed for a minimum life expectancy of 60 years. It takes approximately 29 billion of one square meter of PV surface to produce today’s baseload power in the US, to be available 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. If panels were produced at 10 per second it would take over 90 years to fabricate and install them. Yet their life expectancy is 25 years at best and large scale lithium ion batteries may last ten years. Thus to produce baseload power would become an all-consuming activity for man for centuries to come. For the calculations and background leading to the 29 billion square meter figure please see: http://fusion4freedom.us/going-
Until electricity reaches roughly 80 to 90 cents per kWh solar cannot be cost effective without government and ratepayer subsidies. And no one is addressing the huge amount of surface area required to produce material amounts of baseload power nor the storage of it. Furthermore given this huge surface area and the amount of PV panels needed to produce it, one must consider the life expectancy of both the panels and the storage devices. A nuclear or coal fired generating plant is designed for a minimum life expectancy of 60 years. It takes approximately 29 billion of one square meter of PV surface to produce today’s baseload power in the US, to be available 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. If panels were produced at 10 per second it would take over 90 years to fabricate and install them. Yet their life expectancy is 25 years at best and large scale lithium ion batteries may last ten years. Thus to produce baseload power would become an all-consuming activity for man for centuries to come. For the calculations and background leading to the 29 billion square meter figure please see: http://fusion4freedom.us/going-
1
Energy is one area where, except for safety issues, government should not be involved. It's the free market that has made wind and solar growing energy sources. And the R&D for these sources hasn't been limited to the US. China and Germany, among other countries, have been active in developing more efficient practices for harnessing the power of wind, sun and even waves. Big Energy will get more involved as they see the profit potential -- not because government orders them to do so.
Professor Krugman says that in the 2014 election cycle the oil and gas industry gave 87 percent of its political contributions to Republicans and the coal mining sector gave them 96 percent. Meanwhile, the alternative energy industries gave 56 percent of their contributions to Democrats. I'd say the fossil fuel folks are getting a much better return on their investments.
7
Of course, Prof. Krugman!
Renewables are the future, that's where the money will be as well.
But since the Republicans are by definition conservative and reactionary, they want to keep everything as it is now, apart from cutting taxes and welfare.
Renewables are the future, that's where the money will be as well.
But since the Republicans are by definition conservative and reactionary, they want to keep everything as it is now, apart from cutting taxes and welfare.
10
In planning for new home construction last year, I looked into solar just for kicks. I'm no hippy; I'm a trained engineer who is nothing if not pragmatic. I was quite surprised to find just how viable rooftop solar currently is, even in horribly cloudy western PA. I ultimately decided it was smarter to use the money elsewhere (better furnace, windows, insulation, etc), but it's evident to me that residential solar is on the cusp of a true explosion in spite of the government. In case you were wondering, the house was built to allow for easy solar upgrade in the future and I'm patiently waiting for the right circumstances to start putting my roof to work.
11
It's basically simple. A clothes line cost a lot less than an electric or gas drying machine. Can't have competition, of any kind, for it damages their greed er I mean bottom line.
Problem is right now is that mainly only well off homeowners have installed solar panels. They don't exist on most rentals at all.
This lessens the demand of electric utilities therefore the rates are increased. Savings for the well to do and power bill increases for the rest of us.
Problem is right now is that mainly only well off homeowners have installed solar panels. They don't exist on most rentals at all.
This lessens the demand of electric utilities therefore the rates are increased. Savings for the well to do and power bill increases for the rest of us.
8
Really, Professor "Increasingly Viable"? That is like being "a little bit pregnant." One "is" or "is not."
Oh, I forgot. There is a large portion of America who do not believe viability to be a sticking point in that discussion, but who do believe that possession is ten points of the law
Oh, I forgot. There is a large portion of America who do not believe viability to be a sticking point in that discussion, but who do believe that possession is ten points of the law
I don't quite get what you're saying here. Is this a crypto-pro-life post? Glomming on to a completely uncontroversial idiom? To say of something that as time passes it becomes "Increasingly viable" means that its chances for success rather than bankruptcy and failure (or in the case of a fetus its chances for survival outside the uterus) increase as time passes.
2
Paul,
No matter how winningly you make the case for how much the cost for solar and/or wind generated electricity has decreased by a percentage of its price, the "metal meets the road" when the bill for it's current price is delivered to users. Your rhetorical devices are not going to pay those bills.
A second real world consideration would be how many acres your favored technology would be occupying to replace the fossil fueled energy you need to replace?
No matter how winningly you make the case for how much the cost for solar and/or wind generated electricity has decreased by a percentage of its price, the "metal meets the road" when the bill for it's current price is delivered to users. Your rhetorical devices are not going to pay those bills.
A second real world consideration would be how many acres your favored technology would be occupying to replace the fossil fueled energy you need to replace?
4
The solar folks in my neighborhood offered me a (no-money-down) deal that had my monthly electric bill decreasing.
1
"Employment in the solar industry alone now exceeds the number of coal miners, and solar is adding jobs even as coal declines"
That is, to a certain extent, comparing apples to oranges. You are taking the entire solar industry and comparing it to one part of the coal industry. A better comparison would be to compare the number of silicon and copper miners to the number of coal miners, or to include those involved in the entire coal industry.
That is, to a certain extent, comparing apples to oranges. You are taking the entire solar industry and comparing it to one part of the coal industry. A better comparison would be to compare the number of silicon and copper miners to the number of coal miners, or to include those involved in the entire coal industry.
I think we can boil the right's opposition to renewable energy down a little farther: it's new.
The right today is a big conglomeration of people who DON'T WANT TO CHANGE ANYTHING. Fear goes hand-in-hand, of course. The rich fear they may lose their piles and social standing. Whites fear they may lose their dominate place in the social hierarchy. The bewildered fear they will be overwhelmed by technological change. The religious fear they may lose the emotional crutch that has supported them all their years.
Of course, change is the only constant of human society and those who fear change will eventually be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the new age. We should be compassionate. The heads of those angry, fearful souls is not a happy place to live.
The right today is a big conglomeration of people who DON'T WANT TO CHANGE ANYTHING. Fear goes hand-in-hand, of course. The rich fear they may lose their piles and social standing. Whites fear they may lose their dominate place in the social hierarchy. The bewildered fear they will be overwhelmed by technological change. The religious fear they may lose the emotional crutch that has supported them all their years.
Of course, change is the only constant of human society and those who fear change will eventually be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the new age. We should be compassionate. The heads of those angry, fearful souls is not a happy place to live.
10
You have to admit, though, that change is happening at a much faster pace. Benjamin Franklin got around much in the same way that Julius Caesar got around. Many hundreds of generations lived in ways that previous generations could recognize as "how things are." This is no longer true. Let's have a little compassion for the unwashed, the ignorant. They've always been there, but they always felt they understood more or less what was going on. That's less true in today's world.
1
Since Mr. Krugman addressed two major sets of players on the US energy scene -- fossil fuel and renewables -- it was puzzling not to find even passing reference to the present and prospective role of nuclear power. He might well have judged nuclear expansion to be constrained by costs. But technological progress might well enable this major non-carbon energy source to endure.
At the very least, it would be well to recognize that, presently, nuclear continues to provide one-fifth of the nation's electricity and does so at remarkabley high rates of capacity utilization.
At the very least, it would be well to recognize that, presently, nuclear continues to provide one-fifth of the nation's electricity and does so at remarkabley high rates of capacity utilization.
The alternative energy sector has tremendous upside investment potential.
1 The misfired investment of US government funds in Solyndra of about $500 million was used to blunt and question further investments in this sector. This mistaken investment of US funds resulted from an industrial policy that was trying to spur growth in a sector with very promising future ROIs.
2 China too has an industrial policy that aims to provide low cost capital to international firms in this sector that it is able to lure to Asia. During this sector's initial development stages, it was able to lure solar energy firms to China with below market capital infusions at early stages of these firms life cycles, when their capital needs are most pressing.
3 Potential international future growth in the alternative energy sector may rival that of the Internet sector during the 1990's. As smaller firms ride this cresting wave of investments in alternative energy into the future, a few future Microsofts, Oracles, Ciscos, and other energy firms may emerge with very high ROIs on their past investments. As smaller firms in this sector grow consonant with growth in the sector itself, financial returns similar to those of the early Internet era may result. Then, the misfired investments will be negated by potentially very great future returns. And the IT sector itself, a huge energy consumer, may see its own development tied to this alternative energy sector. 10/5 Mon. 12:44 p.m.
1 The misfired investment of US government funds in Solyndra of about $500 million was used to blunt and question further investments in this sector. This mistaken investment of US funds resulted from an industrial policy that was trying to spur growth in a sector with very promising future ROIs.
2 China too has an industrial policy that aims to provide low cost capital to international firms in this sector that it is able to lure to Asia. During this sector's initial development stages, it was able to lure solar energy firms to China with below market capital infusions at early stages of these firms life cycles, when their capital needs are most pressing.
3 Potential international future growth in the alternative energy sector may rival that of the Internet sector during the 1990's. As smaller firms ride this cresting wave of investments in alternative energy into the future, a few future Microsofts, Oracles, Ciscos, and other energy firms may emerge with very high ROIs on their past investments. As smaller firms in this sector grow consonant with growth in the sector itself, financial returns similar to those of the early Internet era may result. Then, the misfired investments will be negated by potentially very great future returns. And the IT sector itself, a huge energy consumer, may see its own development tied to this alternative energy sector. 10/5 Mon. 12:44 p.m.
4
The replacement of democracy by plutocracy demands that the people be rendered both ignorant and angry lest they notice that big coal kills both its workers and its customers while tobacco contented itself with the slaughter of consumers alone.
Koch tentacles have extended through academia and non-thinking tanks, with Kochs even sitting on PBS boards to bring subarctic temperatures to the organization. They are to be worshipped as philanthropists because they have given one bill out of their hundred to "charity".And the Kochs are just two of the parasitic ruling class. It's gotten so bad that guest speaker Robert Reich was asked by a college president not to mention tax increases on the rich for fear of offending donors and board members.
IT engineer Herve Falciani thought Swiss banks were becoming criminal enterprises actively engaged in the theft of hundreds of billions through tax evasion. So the HSBC Switzerland employee released the files of 130,000 tax evaders, evasions actively aided by the banks who gave the thieves systems of code words and phrases to conceal their acts.
Falciani's Tax Bomb is a movie now running at film festivals.
The U.S. is a neoslavery barbarian prison state without compare in the world. But it's for people stealing food. If you steal billions from hospitals, nurses, teachers, schools (the gov) you are a hero for a parasitic plutocracy who want everything.
And the clown car is going to deliver.
Koch tentacles have extended through academia and non-thinking tanks, with Kochs even sitting on PBS boards to bring subarctic temperatures to the organization. They are to be worshipped as philanthropists because they have given one bill out of their hundred to "charity".And the Kochs are just two of the parasitic ruling class. It's gotten so bad that guest speaker Robert Reich was asked by a college president not to mention tax increases on the rich for fear of offending donors and board members.
IT engineer Herve Falciani thought Swiss banks were becoming criminal enterprises actively engaged in the theft of hundreds of billions through tax evasion. So the HSBC Switzerland employee released the files of 130,000 tax evaders, evasions actively aided by the banks who gave the thieves systems of code words and phrases to conceal their acts.
Falciani's Tax Bomb is a movie now running at film festivals.
The U.S. is a neoslavery barbarian prison state without compare in the world. But it's for people stealing food. If you steal billions from hospitals, nurses, teachers, schools (the gov) you are a hero for a parasitic plutocracy who want everything.
And the clown car is going to deliver.
8
All homes, "gas" stations, businesses, schools, everything should eventually be equipped with solar panels charging lithium batteries to supplement and eventually replace our reliance on fossil fuels. Elon Musk is leading this charge with cars and has recently offered an idea to "charge" homes using the sun. Politicians that always defer to big oil show their inner dinosaur and archaic intelligence. They have been bought and sold. They should serve the common good, not the big oil bottom line. The common good for all people points to a quick and painless transition to alternatives. Where are the unshackled leaders?
3
We live in the So. Ca. desert so roof top solar makes perfect since to us. We have just heard that our local electric provider, So Cal Edison, is lowering the amount we are reimbursed for when we feed the grid. This is highway robbery. No doubt initiated by the greedheads of public policy. Oh, and I love to repeat this tidbit-Carter installed roof top solar on the Whitehouse, only to be removed by the great St. Ronnie. How many years ago was that in which we could have been promoting renewables and protecting the environs?
11
In all of this, it's important to remember that there is no objective reason that big fossil fuel companies cannot switch to a different mode of collecting energy.
In fact they are in many ways in the best position to take advantage of these new technologies. They have the resources, experience, and connections necessary to take solar energy, for example, to the mass market.
Even though we talk about an "addiction to oil," I have to assume that the energy companies themselves are actually addicted to profit, not oil per se. As soon as even one big oil company sees the light and shifts its investments, I can only imagine that the Republican climate denialism will fall out of their mouths like a rotten tooth.
So we don't need to wish death to the oil companies. Just a solid, transformative dose of common sense. The best strategy is to amplify and accelerate the market pressures that would compel these companies to convert.
In fact they are in many ways in the best position to take advantage of these new technologies. They have the resources, experience, and connections necessary to take solar energy, for example, to the mass market.
Even though we talk about an "addiction to oil," I have to assume that the energy companies themselves are actually addicted to profit, not oil per se. As soon as even one big oil company sees the light and shifts its investments, I can only imagine that the Republican climate denialism will fall out of their mouths like a rotten tooth.
So we don't need to wish death to the oil companies. Just a solid, transformative dose of common sense. The best strategy is to amplify and accelerate the market pressures that would compel these companies to convert.
3
Exactly, right. When there is as much money to be made, Big Oil will become Big Green.
No Paul, the truth is that solar and wind get huge subsidies, especially the sell back to utilities provision that your rich white friends get for the solar panels on their multi-million dollar homes (they don’t really like windmills, blocks the view). Sort of like a school voucher program for rich liberals who quietly legislate that cost onto the middle and lower classes through higher utility bills. You know, the people that Hillary cares about most. Oh by the way, those middle class folks, they like fracking Paul, they love it!! Just look at the enthusiasm at the pump these days! All on Obama's watch too! Thanks Pal! Oh, and Paul, you forgot to mention that West Texas wind blows at night but the energy is needed during the day. Yea, windmills are not typically the best idea but the party of science says lets go with it anyway because somehow the Koch brothers have the wind on the payroll. Those crazy guys.
2
President Carter installed solar panels on the roof of the White House. Like many things he did, it was visionary but fiercely derided. When Reagan took up the presidency, one of the first things he did was remove them.
7
Assume all the evil beliefs of Republicans that Krugman states, what exactly are Republicans doing to prevent the expansion of solar and/or wind energy? Krugman mentions no actual anti-wind or solar policy. Is it that Republicans aren't actively subsidizing these sectors? Well, if they are as strong as Krugman says, why should they? How does a neutral indifference towards solar and wind power equate to being an enemy of the sun? Other than bile and spleen-venting what does Krugman actually do in this article? Is he advocating for subsidies? Then say so.
2
A Methane heat wave, combined with Global Warming, signals a real possibility of human extinction beginning in 5 to 15 years.
Sustaining life on Earth requires reducing the burning of fossil fuels 90% within 5 years.
New Science and technology could make that possible. Small firms are developing 24/7 green power including Cold Fusion (LENR) and a magnetic system in India. See CHEAP GREEN on the aesopinstitute.org website.
AESOP is developing, seemingly impossible, Fuel-Free Engines. They will run 24/7 on Atmospheric Heat, a source of solar energy larger than all the fossil fuels.
Another AESOP technology could employ equally unlikely solid-state magnetic generators. These would be a cost-competitive alternative to solar panels - producing Alternating Current 24/7 without rooftop panels or need for inverters.
Fossil fuels are subsidized to the tune of $5.3 Trillion this year! (International Monetary Fund – Working Paper – WP/15/105 - May, 2015 – Page 30)
A 90% reduction in burning fossil fuels is hard to believe possible. However, world-wide mobilization of all renewable technology on a 24/7 basis is humanity’s only hope!
A 4 engine bomber was produced every 59 minutes 24/7 in the USA during WWII. Most thought THAT impossible before it happened. Breakthrough energy technologies are much simpler than bombers.
BOLD ACTION IS REQUIRED! Check the facts. Help if you can. The lives you save may include your own - and those of everyone you care about.
Sustaining life on Earth requires reducing the burning of fossil fuels 90% within 5 years.
New Science and technology could make that possible. Small firms are developing 24/7 green power including Cold Fusion (LENR) and a magnetic system in India. See CHEAP GREEN on the aesopinstitute.org website.
AESOP is developing, seemingly impossible, Fuel-Free Engines. They will run 24/7 on Atmospheric Heat, a source of solar energy larger than all the fossil fuels.
Another AESOP technology could employ equally unlikely solid-state magnetic generators. These would be a cost-competitive alternative to solar panels - producing Alternating Current 24/7 without rooftop panels or need for inverters.
Fossil fuels are subsidized to the tune of $5.3 Trillion this year! (International Monetary Fund – Working Paper – WP/15/105 - May, 2015 – Page 30)
A 90% reduction in burning fossil fuels is hard to believe possible. However, world-wide mobilization of all renewable technology on a 24/7 basis is humanity’s only hope!
A 4 engine bomber was produced every 59 minutes 24/7 in the USA during WWII. Most thought THAT impossible before it happened. Breakthrough energy technologies are much simpler than bombers.
BOLD ACTION IS REQUIRED! Check the facts. Help if you can. The lives you save may include your own - and those of everyone you care about.
4
There is a well established consensus amongst scientists that global warming is happening, and even a consensus as to its cause. However there are diverging opinions on consequences, even within our lifetime. The genie is now out of the bottle but what it will do is still largely speculative where there is little or no consensus. Conceivably our goose is cooked already regardless what we may or may not do. Physicist Stephen Hawking observes ''it is not clear yet that intelligence has any long-term survival value''.
3
Solar energy is here to stay. And our economy will adjust to it, reluctantly perhaps and accepting it. The next technology that gives it a boost will make it a common place in the next few decades.
Rest of the world is already experimenting it.
Rest of the world is already experimenting it.
2
We live about 45 minutes south of San Francisco. The average monthly electric bill was about $240, averaged over a two year period.
Five years ago we plopped down $25,000 for 33 solar panels (it would have cost even less had we used the cheaper panels that were made in China) and since then our electric bill is about $5 a month, for transmission and not energy charge. Not counting energy cost inflation that's a return of 11.5% a year when the rate of return for savings is about 1%.
Let the fossil guys do the arithmetic. Not only that the annual energy production is guaranteed.
Five years ago we plopped down $25,000 for 33 solar panels (it would have cost even less had we used the cheaper panels that were made in China) and since then our electric bill is about $5 a month, for transmission and not energy charge. Not counting energy cost inflation that's a return of 11.5% a year when the rate of return for savings is about 1%.
Let the fossil guys do the arithmetic. Not only that the annual energy production is guaranteed.
9
As expected, Krugman shows his leftist biases and ignorance.
Wind and solar energy is as yet nowhere as cost-effective as fossil fuels - even with the generous federal (ie - taxpayers money) subsidies, and it is only those subsidies that allow many installers to afford it.
Wind energy has proven to be both inefficient, unreliable, and bad for the environment ( vis the bird kills that you would think the Left would abhor), never mind that much, if not most, of the production is sourced out of this country. Yea - great use of our tax dollars, Krugman.
Never mind that too many powerful politicians don't want the sight of wind turbines despoiling their views - The Kennedys anyone?
There most definitely a place for alternative energies in today's world, but so far it seems that only the conservatives are concerned with doing the changeover effectively and efficiently.
Wind and solar energy is as yet nowhere as cost-effective as fossil fuels - even with the generous federal (ie - taxpayers money) subsidies, and it is only those subsidies that allow many installers to afford it.
Wind energy has proven to be both inefficient, unreliable, and bad for the environment ( vis the bird kills that you would think the Left would abhor), never mind that much, if not most, of the production is sourced out of this country. Yea - great use of our tax dollars, Krugman.
Never mind that too many powerful politicians don't want the sight of wind turbines despoiling their views - The Kennedys anyone?
There most definitely a place for alternative energies in today's world, but so far it seems that only the conservatives are concerned with doing the changeover effectively and efficiently.
3
i see we're repeating the old shibboleths:
1. Windmills Kill Birds (at a tiny fraction of the rate coal and oil kill them).
2. Renewables are costly, and only survive because of guv'mint subsidy (pay no attention to the tax subsidies, government incentives for construction, taxpayer support for powerlines, the way citizens end up on the hook for Deepwater Horizon and suchlike).
3. Renewables are all made overseas (why's it called Royal Dutch Shell? What's "BP," stand for, again?).
Good grief.
1. Windmills Kill Birds (at a tiny fraction of the rate coal and oil kill them).
2. Renewables are costly, and only survive because of guv'mint subsidy (pay no attention to the tax subsidies, government incentives for construction, taxpayer support for powerlines, the way citizens end up on the hook for Deepwater Horizon and suchlike).
3. Renewables are all made overseas (why's it called Royal Dutch Shell? What's "BP," stand for, again?).
Good grief.
12
Perhaps this is the re-emergence of the Era of Buggy Whips and Combustion Engines. Roughly a hundred years ago, people disregarded those newfangled automobiles, rather than give-up the trusted horse and buggy mode of transportation. In time, however, the horse whip that get the horse-power "engine" to move faster or pull harder was, indeed, replaced.
The fossil fuel industry has taken advantage of tax convenience over the years. In fact, that enabled its Congressional lobbyists to work harder, thus allowing it to maintain its virtual lock on most power options. The National Highway System had accelerated the demand for gas stations throughout America,
Big Energy has also fought the necessary Federal funding to create electric re-charging stations along our highways. Big auto helps by denying Tesla showrooms in certain states. And in some states, renewable alternative to Big Power is non-existent.
When you consider the in creased energy output in the U.S, we should also recognize the part of that--even though output is hindered--and thus adding to the sharp decline in global oil prices. Think of all the times that the Republican Party has suggested that, in a truly fair market, everyone should have to compete--on an equal playing field. So, why not Big Energy--Oil, Gas and Coal?
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
The fossil fuel industry has taken advantage of tax convenience over the years. In fact, that enabled its Congressional lobbyists to work harder, thus allowing it to maintain its virtual lock on most power options. The National Highway System had accelerated the demand for gas stations throughout America,
Big Energy has also fought the necessary Federal funding to create electric re-charging stations along our highways. Big auto helps by denying Tesla showrooms in certain states. And in some states, renewable alternative to Big Power is non-existent.
When you consider the in creased energy output in the U.S, we should also recognize the part of that--even though output is hindered--and thus adding to the sharp decline in global oil prices. Think of all the times that the Republican Party has suggested that, in a truly fair market, everyone should have to compete--on an equal playing field. So, why not Big Energy--Oil, Gas and Coal?
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
"But they don’t. Indeed, they’re less open-minded than Dick Cheney, which is quite an accomplishment. Why?"
Because the Bush family is oil, and because Mr. Rubio is financed by oil?
Because the Bush family is oil, and because Mr. Rubio is financed by oil?
3
We should be expecting Big Oil to start attacking the "myth" that air pollution is bad for you. I'm sure that "scientists" will find that carbon monoxide and the myriad of other toxins are actually good for you - something that the government and liberal kooks just don't want you to know. Especially the fact that these supposed "pollutants" will give you super powers - something that the government doesn't want for Americans !!
4
Fortunately, not all "conservatives" are so short sighted. Billionaire Phillip Anschutz believes he could power L.A. and San Francisco with the wind on his 500 sq.mile ranch in Wyoming. He has to get his permitting approved or the pace of California solar power growth could undercut the price floor the state built in for alt-generation some years ago. His wind reportedly blows best at night.
Residential and commercial power usage will go that way sooner rather than later, the economies of scale will dictate that. Our love affairs with our cars may take a few decades; but as long as we can get in a personal transportation module and go to B, hey who cares what power source is under the hood.
I ascribe the cognitive dissonance behind the reactionary reality denial the GOP insists on to their grounding in religious fundamentalism. A world view based on unchanging exceptionalism perceives the new as threatening, especially when this fear is hyped by bought and paid for 'news' hysteria.
Residential and commercial power usage will go that way sooner rather than later, the economies of scale will dictate that. Our love affairs with our cars may take a few decades; but as long as we can get in a personal transportation module and go to B, hey who cares what power source is under the hood.
I ascribe the cognitive dissonance behind the reactionary reality denial the GOP insists on to their grounding in religious fundamentalism. A world view based on unchanging exceptionalism perceives the new as threatening, especially when this fear is hyped by bought and paid for 'news' hysteria.
3
After more than 45 years in the marketing communications business, I need to expose a couple of Big Energy lies. First, there is no such think as "clean coal." If there was, we would not be having these discussions about polluted air and respiratory illnesses caused by fossil fuel production. The 'clean' description of coal use has no scientific basis. This is a marketing ploy ginned up by the marketing folks in and for the industry.
Then, of course, there is the recently divulged lie about "clean diesel" created by the engineers and marketers at Volkswagen. Their so-called 'clean' diesel VW's and Audi's were a cruel hoax upon the buyers and sellers of those cars. Now those cars are sitting en mass on dealer lots while the owners are feeling scammed. Either they continue to drive their cars until they drop or sell them at embarrassingly huge losses.
While I do believe it will take decades to transition ships, trains and aircraft away from fossil fuels, that transition for cars, trucks and power plants is within easy reach. It is merely political will that stands in the way.
Then, of course, there is the recently divulged lie about "clean diesel" created by the engineers and marketers at Volkswagen. Their so-called 'clean' diesel VW's and Audi's were a cruel hoax upon the buyers and sellers of those cars. Now those cars are sitting en mass on dealer lots while the owners are feeling scammed. Either they continue to drive their cars until they drop or sell them at embarrassingly huge losses.
While I do believe it will take decades to transition ships, trains and aircraft away from fossil fuels, that transition for cars, trucks and power plants is within easy reach. It is merely political will that stands in the way.
4
But what happens when we run out of sun and wind? I don't want to live in a world in which solar panels throw shadows over me everywhere, and wind turbines steal the slightest breeze away. I would much rather drive my Hummer to a forest and lie in some deep glade in the woods,
2
Please say that you're kidding.
A friend of mine installed solar panels on her medium-sized house several years ago when they were more expensive. But they paid for themselves in four years.
Yes, Old Energy is a major health hazard and both pollution and climate change should be bi-partisan concerns. I am truly surprised that rooftops are not covered with solar panels at this point. Especially office buildings. (They even make glass windows now that act as solar panels.)
Old Energy is the new Tobacco.
Yes, Old Energy is a major health hazard and both pollution and climate change should be bi-partisan concerns. I am truly surprised that rooftops are not covered with solar panels at this point. Especially office buildings. (They even make glass windows now that act as solar panels.)
Old Energy is the new Tobacco.
19
Another truth that the public does not understand is that so-called clean coal is actually a research project with much work still to be done. Cost-effective and proven methods for removing carbon dioxide from combustion gases are not available. Using coal will continue to result in greenhouse gas emissions. This reality is in stark contrast to solar energy and wind energy that are available today.
5
There are reasons why solar power and wind aren't nearly as promising as they're widely believed to be, especially by the left, that are too complicated to cover comprehensively in 1500 characters. To put it briefly though, those reasons for the most part stem fundamentally from problems created by wind and solar's intermittency.
At low market penetrations, where intermittent renewables (IRs) together account supply 10% or less of total electric power demand, intermittency costs are negligible and are passed on as an externality to other power plant operators who ramp their own output up and down to accomodate IRs' ebbs and surges. Once IRs achieve higher market penetrations, starting at around 20%, dealing with their intermittency becomes a major problem, and the cost of dealing with the challenges it presents as market penetration increases will quickly grow to, as Bill Gates put it, "beyond astronomical". These beyond astronomical costs will exist even if solar panels can be produced for free.
There are other problems to consider with IRs as well. For example, a solar farm can expect to achieve an average power density of 5-20 W/m2. Wind farms achieve average power densities in the 1-3 W/m2 range. US average electric power consumption in 2012 was 437 billion watts. Arithmetic shows that meeting 2012 electric power demand with IRs would energy farming an area the size of West Virginia (this is, by the way, the absolute lower bound on area required).
At low market penetrations, where intermittent renewables (IRs) together account supply 10% or less of total electric power demand, intermittency costs are negligible and are passed on as an externality to other power plant operators who ramp their own output up and down to accomodate IRs' ebbs and surges. Once IRs achieve higher market penetrations, starting at around 20%, dealing with their intermittency becomes a major problem, and the cost of dealing with the challenges it presents as market penetration increases will quickly grow to, as Bill Gates put it, "beyond astronomical". These beyond astronomical costs will exist even if solar panels can be produced for free.
There are other problems to consider with IRs as well. For example, a solar farm can expect to achieve an average power density of 5-20 W/m2. Wind farms achieve average power densities in the 1-3 W/m2 range. US average electric power consumption in 2012 was 437 billion watts. Arithmetic shows that meeting 2012 electric power demand with IRs would energy farming an area the size of West Virginia (this is, by the way, the absolute lower bound on area required).
3
ok, so do it. west virginia is 12% of US. has 88% powered by 12%. I thinks thats a great deal for total independence and think of the jobs created that don't involve black lung, and cancer. It would be Incredible
1
The numbers seem daunting, but this is not impractical. There are roughly 135 million housing units in the US according to the 2014 census. Taking an average roof area of 1000 sq. ft., this comes to 22% of the area of West Virginia. So, solar panels on the roofs of all houses alone get to 22% of the goal. Add another easy 10% for currently planned industrial-size wind and solar farms, and we're 1/3 of the way there. Nothing to sneeze at.
1
Andrew, you ignore the advances in storage like Elon Musk's Power Wall and the continuing efficiency improvements in transportation, industrial and residential sectors.
If government subsidies for rooftop solar are extended and even heightened we will begin to see many homes that meet all of their electricity needs including transportation needs. Imagine doing all of your driving courtesy of the sun.
You offer nothing to replace the entrenched greenhouse gas spewing technologies of old. But perhaps planet warming does not concern you.
If government subsidies for rooftop solar are extended and even heightened we will begin to see many homes that meet all of their electricity needs including transportation needs. Imagine doing all of your driving courtesy of the sun.
You offer nothing to replace the entrenched greenhouse gas spewing technologies of old. But perhaps planet warming does not concern you.
Krugman observed,"One whole chapter was devoted to conservation, another to renewable energy. By contrast, recent speeches by Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio — still the most likely Republican presidential nominees — barely address either topic. "
That's because the past 7 years have shown us the fairy tale of solar and wind power as a panacea to be a money pit. Spain largely abandoned what had been the world's most ambitious solar program. And here at home, we saw Solyndra and others soak us for billions of dollars with the blessing of the Obama administration, mostly because they were bundlers and benefactors. Republicans running for President are mindful that the public has caught on to the game and know "renewable energy" is a cash boondoggle, and is at the top of no one's priority list.
That's because the past 7 years have shown us the fairy tale of solar and wind power as a panacea to be a money pit. Spain largely abandoned what had been the world's most ambitious solar program. And here at home, we saw Solyndra and others soak us for billions of dollars with the blessing of the Obama administration, mostly because they were bundlers and benefactors. Republicans running for President are mindful that the public has caught on to the game and know "renewable energy" is a cash boondoggle, and is at the top of no one's priority list.
1
YOu are just wrong. Look at Germany.
1
I disagree with Prof. Krugman on one point, the GOP is not the party of "Old Energy", they are the party of large highly profitable corporations who provide the elixir that continues to put the same drunkards in office.
5
``So you might expect people like Mr. Rubio, who says he wants to “unleash our energy potential,”''
No, actually, I would expect these people to reflect the ideas espoused by the people buttering their bread. Think Koch. Their paychecks depend on paleo-carbons.
No, actually, I would expect these people to reflect the ideas espoused by the people buttering their bread. Think Koch. Their paychecks depend on paleo-carbons.
5
Two miles from my house, there is a renewable electricity generating plant that can supply all the electricity that our town (pop 4,000) needs, when the plant is up and running properly, which isn't always. The plant runs on agricultural waste and it is a good fit for us because of our long cold dark winters.
But this is a cautionary tale. The plant was built and belongs to MMPA, a regional power authority, The electricity the plant generates goes onto the grid. The town is a member of MMPA but we didn't contribute directly to the cost of building the plant, nor do we get any directly identifiable benefit from it. We get our power from the grid. This is an example of how an intervening structure - - - a middleman - - - can disguise and possibly capture the benefits of "going green". Think the structure of our healthcare delivery system.
But this is a cautionary tale. The plant was built and belongs to MMPA, a regional power authority, The electricity the plant generates goes onto the grid. The town is a member of MMPA but we didn't contribute directly to the cost of building the plant, nor do we get any directly identifiable benefit from it. We get our power from the grid. This is an example of how an intervening structure - - - a middleman - - - can disguise and possibly capture the benefits of "going green". Think the structure of our healthcare delivery system.
49
A good point. Often overlooked, the common carriers such as the owners of high voltage lines, are more than just influential in charting our energy future: often, they seem to steer the ship.
1
Oncor, the giant electric distribution network in N. Texas recently made plans to put in massive new battery technology, a system which could eliminate the need to start old inefficient power plants during peak electric usage such as in summer and during cold snaps, but these giga batteries of course would also allow storage of solar power generated for night time use. Seemed like a win-win for efficiency and the free market. But he un-elected Texas Public Utility Commission (PUC) put a stop to the plan, declaring the planned giant batteries to be "generators" of power, no different than any new power plant, and thus subject to the same multi-year permitting processes and red tape required for any new plant. Now Oncor, the only profitable component in the now-bankrupt Energy Future Holding (which in 2007 used $45 billion to take over the old Texas Utilities, and promptly went bankrupt) is slated to be purchased by the billionaire Hunt family using yet another private equity scheme, this time involving a "real estate investment trust" or REIT as a mega tax dodge. Wanna bet that the PUC will approve the Hunt's plan?
10
Cheny was right about energy if little else. Mr. Krugman is wrong. Almost all the jobs in solar would not exist without government support. If you took it away the industry would collapse. If you did the same with fossil fuels the cost would go up less than 10%.
2
I wonder what would happen if Big Oil stopped spending so much trying to discredit alternative and renewable energy.
13
Yes, the jobs we have now in solar are very much due to initial government support. But you are wrong to claim that removal of said support would cause the industry to collapse. Per Krugman's fact-checked opinion piece, solar is no longer needs government support.
3
How about the external costs of using fossil fuels not captured in current pricing models? Yes, there's a cost for the fossil fuels themselves, but there's also a cost for using those fossil fuels which is not captured in the product cost. Pollution, climate change, etc. ALL individuals will have to contribute to deal with those issues, and those costs are external to the cost of the product itself.
Add the external cost to the product cost and you have the true cost.
And were it not for government support most of the space program jobs (both public and private sector) would not have existed. Yet there were many, many beneficial commercial products which came out of the space program.
Similarly, the Internet (with its attendant employment) would not be where it is today without massive government subsidies through the military back in the 60s, 70s and 80s, and probably beyond.
The same will be true with alternative energy.
Add the external cost to the product cost and you have the true cost.
And were it not for government support most of the space program jobs (both public and private sector) would not have existed. Yet there were many, many beneficial commercial products which came out of the space program.
Similarly, the Internet (with its attendant employment) would not be where it is today without massive government subsidies through the military back in the 60s, 70s and 80s, and probably beyond.
The same will be true with alternative energy.
3
As usual, Krugman hits the nail on the head. Why it has become De Rigueur in the Republican Party to deny science escapes me. But remember what happened to Jon Huntsman in the 2012 campaign: as soon as he let slip that he accepted evolution and climate change as scientific fact, his funding dried up and he had to withdraw. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, seemed to have no trouble switching his declared beliefs 180 degrees from those he'd had to profess in order to become governor of Massachusetts to those he had to assert to win the Republican nomination for the presidency. I see no particular political advantage to be gained from denying scientific fact, but it seems to have become part of GOP dogma. So sad.
106
Perhaps their positions "evolved", as Obama's did regarding gay marriage. And I doubt science had anything to do with it.
Let me explain: the GOP represents the interests and ambitions of a very small, very influential percentage of voters. They knwo they'll never be able, themselves, to win elections with only the votes of those who can benefit from their policies. So, they need to hoodwink more voters to their side in elections, and their strategy is to go after those who are most persuadable, by appealing to their interests as a distraction from their real objectives. Those distractions cover a range of issues, mainly social, that appeal to the easily-hoodwinked, low education, very religious low hanging fruit.
So, the Bible, yes, science, no (remember the Scopes trial?). Plenty of saber-rattling and foreign military adventures showing what he-men we are in the good ole US of A. Anything that celebrates the image of how we'd like to remember the past and an avoidance of anything relevant to the present or future. It's all guns and trans-fast, bread and circuses, to appeal to these needed voters and make them vote against their own self-interests.
So, the Bible, yes, science, no (remember the Scopes trial?). Plenty of saber-rattling and foreign military adventures showing what he-men we are in the good ole US of A. Anything that celebrates the image of how we'd like to remember the past and an avoidance of anything relevant to the present or future. It's all guns and trans-fast, bread and circuses, to appeal to these needed voters and make them vote against their own self-interests.
1
In response to Mac Davis
A stand alone system costs more because it involves storage batteries so you're comparing apples and oranges. Also, the life of the system as a whole is far more that 8-10 years since you would only have to replace batteries and panels but the rest of the system is hardware that is unlikely to wear out. There is a technology race going on in battery technology and we can look forward to significant improvements in capacity, size and life. You may find future battery replacements far cheaper.
Also, you have put no value on using clean energy it says you're enlightened and a thinking citizen. If Republican's regain control of their party we may see swift action to confront global warming. Within the science community global warming is seen as a real threat to humanity and only Conservative denial prevents action. One should assume that during the next ten years the price of fossil fuels will begin to rise and those conserving the most energy will be rewarded through energy rebates for conservation. And you will have helped it happen.
Also get involved politically its easier than you may think and fight for better utility buy back rates.
A stand alone system costs more because it involves storage batteries so you're comparing apples and oranges. Also, the life of the system as a whole is far more that 8-10 years since you would only have to replace batteries and panels but the rest of the system is hardware that is unlikely to wear out. There is a technology race going on in battery technology and we can look forward to significant improvements in capacity, size and life. You may find future battery replacements far cheaper.
Also, you have put no value on using clean energy it says you're enlightened and a thinking citizen. If Republican's regain control of their party we may see swift action to confront global warming. Within the science community global warming is seen as a real threat to humanity and only Conservative denial prevents action. One should assume that during the next ten years the price of fossil fuels will begin to rise and those conserving the most energy will be rewarded through energy rebates for conservation. And you will have helped it happen.
Also get involved politically its easier than you may think and fight for better utility buy back rates.
4
These so-called advances we should expect in battery technology have been crowed about for literally a century. How far have we come? The 1914 Detroit Electric had an advertised range of 80 miles. A modern Nissan Leaf, with 100 years of technological advancement under it's hood, has a real world range of 60 miles, albeit with a much higher speed capacity.
In that same hundred years, a 4-cylinder internal combustion engine went from 20 horsepower, 15 mpg and smog that could choke a goat, to 200 horsepower (300+ with a turbo), 42 mpg and an EPA label of PZEV.
Government funding of electrical transportation must end. If it's so great, the market will support. FYI, Detroit Electric died in 1937.
In that same hundred years, a 4-cylinder internal combustion engine went from 20 horsepower, 15 mpg and smog that could choke a goat, to 200 horsepower (300+ with a turbo), 42 mpg and an EPA label of PZEV.
Government funding of electrical transportation must end. If it's so great, the market will support. FYI, Detroit Electric died in 1937.
i see we're keeping mum on the topic of the Tesla and taxpayer subsidies for coal and oil.
Why is that?
Why is that?
2
There is room for more solar and wind power, but they are not going to become mainstream sources of energy. Solar, in particular, is economical in most places because residential owners can sell power back to utilities, which is not viable when scaled up. The word that is missing here is "nuclear," which is the only technology that can provide energy in the quantities needed. We need to start getting comfortable with that.
5
Has no one looked at what massive wind and solar capacity expansion has done in Germany. Here is the basics:
1) Massive loss of value of existing power companies who will no longer invest in new plant and equipment because it isn't needed, expect when it is cloudy or not windy
2) Massive expansion of coal use because no one wants to build new technology fossil fuel plants that are clean
3) Massive state subsidies that are making power 2-3x of other nations. Many companies are moving and expanding out of Germany
4) A new word...Energy Poverty where people cannot afford their electricity
So the net result is more CO2 emissions, more costly energy, double investment in both baseload and renewable energy infrastructure, since you need the baseload if the sun isn't shining and it isn't windy. Very bad strategy!
1) Massive loss of value of existing power companies who will no longer invest in new plant and equipment because it isn't needed, expect when it is cloudy or not windy
2) Massive expansion of coal use because no one wants to build new technology fossil fuel plants that are clean
3) Massive state subsidies that are making power 2-3x of other nations. Many companies are moving and expanding out of Germany
4) A new word...Energy Poverty where people cannot afford their electricity
So the net result is more CO2 emissions, more costly energy, double investment in both baseload and renewable energy infrastructure, since you need the baseload if the sun isn't shining and it isn't windy. Very bad strategy!
2
Maybe, but your explanation doesn't quite make sense. Basically Germany needs more and dirtier energy because it has too much energy available most of the time?
I bought an electric car in january, so cheap because bad reviews--Americans don't like the small size, the sound of the door closing etc.-- driven 8 000 miles so far flawlessly, plug it in at night, ready to go next morning-- hardly ever drive my gas cars any more..oil companies are doomed..
94
Uh - do you have rooftop solar? Else, where did your grid power come from?
Possibly, it's nuclear or hydroelectric. But it may be carbon based power actually powering your car, ultimately.
Possibly, it's nuclear or hydroelectric. But it may be carbon based power actually powering your car, ultimately.
As soon as they figure out how to own the sun wind and seas, the retrogressors will become renewable energy boosters. Until then, which, BTW will never happen, they will remain what they are, the last of the dinosaurs, Ignorasaures. But take heart, such species have a way of disappearing over night. An Asteroid strike doesn't have to be a dense physical happening. Think of an asteroid made up of common sense hitting humanity's mental body!
10
Great timing for the article, especially for the folks in the benighted state of North Carolina.
During the state budget debate in last legislative session, which ended last week and run by Tea Party majorities in the NC House and Senate, tax credits were taken away from the robust solar energy industry in the state, 4th in the nation. It seems that the solar energy folks in NC were doing too well for their own business. Never mind that the tax break elimination will cost the state hundreds of skilled, decent paying jobs, where employees can actually earn a living.
Duke Energy, the largest energy producer in the state, which can reduce its reliance on coal burning power plants by receipt of solar generated electricity, remained officially "neutral" in the legislative session
Governor Pat "I'm not a scientist" McCrory signed the budget into law. Apparently the Kochs and other big fossil fuel minders of their Tea Party minions in the legislature brought NC to heel- wouldn't want clean solar energy to supplant big coal.
During the state budget debate in last legislative session, which ended last week and run by Tea Party majorities in the NC House and Senate, tax credits were taken away from the robust solar energy industry in the state, 4th in the nation. It seems that the solar energy folks in NC were doing too well for their own business. Never mind that the tax break elimination will cost the state hundreds of skilled, decent paying jobs, where employees can actually earn a living.
Duke Energy, the largest energy producer in the state, which can reduce its reliance on coal burning power plants by receipt of solar generated electricity, remained officially "neutral" in the legislative session
Governor Pat "I'm not a scientist" McCrory signed the budget into law. Apparently the Kochs and other big fossil fuel minders of their Tea Party minions in the legislature brought NC to heel- wouldn't want clean solar energy to supplant big coal.
100
I think it's time to stop thinking of America as an "advanced country."
28
Then I have the perfect political party for you to join!
Sure, the Bush Administration was friendly to the job providers of this nation. I'm convinced that Professor Krugman is correct in his assessment of the policy makers in Cheney's group. However, he fails to see the exact same thing undertaken by the Obama Administration when it comes to the Affordable Care Act.
It's easy to see the past sins of others while ignoring one's own. One would expect a conservative to want to tilt the playing field toward those whom are seen as creators of private industry jobs. One would also expect a liberal to want to federalize as much of the economy as possible. The problem is that ideologues only see their own position while turning a blind eye, or in Krugman's case, both blind eyes, to the opposition point of view.
It's easy to see the past sins of others while ignoring one's own. One would expect a conservative to want to tilt the playing field toward those whom are seen as creators of private industry jobs. One would also expect a liberal to want to federalize as much of the economy as possible. The problem is that ideologues only see their own position while turning a blind eye, or in Krugman's case, both blind eyes, to the opposition point of view.
The ACA is not federalizing much. All of the insurers are private. You wingers always misrepresent what it is.
7
What?? How can Mr. Smith possibly allege that the Obama Administration ignored Republican policy makers when creating the Affordable Care Act? It is a system designed by Republicans and first signed in to law by a Republican governor.
1
Revealing: in the mind of someone on the right, the liberal or progressive agenda is for the government to own and control as much of the economy as possible.
This is not true in any way. So why do so many take it as, er, gospel?
The right has been sold a bill of goods and they don't even know it.
This is not true in any way. So why do so many take it as, er, gospel?
The right has been sold a bill of goods and they don't even know it.
1
Yes, the Republican party really is the party of "old fossils" and until we get the money out of politics that will be the case--for both political parties. Unfortunately, the planet might not support human life in the time it takes for Big Oil to release its choke-hold on political life. Perhaps market force will help as they have with making Big Coal nearly extinct. If only Tesla could find a way like Henry Ford to make a cheap car and other incentives could be implemented to allow the transformation of fossil fuel based utilities to switch to leasing solar we could speed the process before we all choke on unbreathable air.
2
As a miner, I am fully in favor of "renewables". All of these technologies begin by digging gigantic holes in the ground using gigantic earth-moving equipment consuming gigantic quantities of fossil fuels. It's a lot of hard work with little reward and we get a lot of crp from greenies, but we love it and there is no other choice. And that's just the start. That's just to extract the raw materials to build the machines and infrastructure that will dig more gigantic holes to extract the raw materials for wind turbines and PVCs and hydro dams, etc., not to mention the refineries and manufacturing plants and roads, and on and on and on. If you are truly in favor of the necessary transition to "renewables" then you must also be in favor of everything required to get there. Wind turbines do not grow from magic beans. They grow from gigantic holes in the Earth.
3
All understood, JOK. The big change is to stop digging so many holes just to take out old carbon and burn it.
For the rest, we do it cleanly and safely as possible and pay you for your work. Then we let the sun shine and the sun's heat drive the wind, and leave all the old carbon down where it belongs.
For the rest, we do it cleanly and safely as possible and pay you for your work. Then we let the sun shine and the sun's heat drive the wind, and leave all the old carbon down where it belongs.
5
Even if this is all true, it is a one time use for these technologies.
4
Wind and solar are now competitive without subsidies. But, they will take too long, even with a massive program including federal infrastructure spending. The molten salt fission reactor looks good, esp. since it can be shut down with passive cooling and the radioactive waste products decay in hundreds of years, not thousands. However, they will also take too long and face the 'not in my backyard' conundrum.
There is only one way to move the ball rapidly enough, with a long-term solution. Small fusion. With the new superconducting magnets, it is now practical to build small tokamaks (see MIT design). And, there are 4 or 5 other small fusion projects underway that show promise. They are not receiving adequate federal funding.
Therefore, I urge Secretary Moniz and President Obama to develop an Apollo-type 10-year plan to bring small fusion on line. ITER and NIF will turn out to be nothing more than large, expensive research projects. Much will be learned, but they are obsolete.
There is only one way to move the ball rapidly enough, with a long-term solution. Small fusion. With the new superconducting magnets, it is now practical to build small tokamaks (see MIT design). And, there are 4 or 5 other small fusion projects underway that show promise. They are not receiving adequate federal funding.
Therefore, I urge Secretary Moniz and President Obama to develop an Apollo-type 10-year plan to bring small fusion on line. ITER and NIF will turn out to be nothing more than large, expensive research projects. Much will be learned, but they are obsolete.
2
Great Opinion, as always by PK.
One point: PG states "It’s unlikely...that energy policy will play as big a role as other issues, such as tax policy, in the 2016 election.".
Hopefully, energy policies will be fully debated in the next presidential élections, as they are keys to our environment and economcy.
A first step would be dismantle any and all subsidies to the hydrocarbon mining industry, i.e. oïl and natural gas. Indeed,, why subsidize exploration and production of hydrocarbons while, by doing so, we are both polluting the environment where these wells lie, and then re-polluting the air by refining and burning them, mostly in power generation and transportation, which in turn contributes to global warming.
A second step would be to put in place an urgent and massive national plan for developping clean and renewable energies in all applications, from housing to industry and transport, with related subsidies to companies which will be ready to assume a pioneering role in these fields.
These topics should truly be part of the presidential campaign, as they have a massive and direct impact on our country's environment and economy, as well as those of our immediate Neighbors, from the Arctic to South America.
One point: PG states "It’s unlikely...that energy policy will play as big a role as other issues, such as tax policy, in the 2016 election.".
Hopefully, energy policies will be fully debated in the next presidential élections, as they are keys to our environment and economcy.
A first step would be dismantle any and all subsidies to the hydrocarbon mining industry, i.e. oïl and natural gas. Indeed,, why subsidize exploration and production of hydrocarbons while, by doing so, we are both polluting the environment where these wells lie, and then re-polluting the air by refining and burning them, mostly in power generation and transportation, which in turn contributes to global warming.
A second step would be to put in place an urgent and massive national plan for developping clean and renewable energies in all applications, from housing to industry and transport, with related subsidies to companies which will be ready to assume a pioneering role in these fields.
These topics should truly be part of the presidential campaign, as they have a massive and direct impact on our country's environment and economy, as well as those of our immediate Neighbors, from the Arctic to South America.
2
Maybe they should be, but even if they are mentioned, they'll take a back seat to Hillary's email account, the Benghazi inquisition, abortion, same sex marriage, the death penalty, taxes, taxes, taxes, building walls with beautiful doors on our borders,the right of certain Protestants to foist their beliefs on everyone else in the name of religious freedom,and the rest of the red herrings that prevent real political discussions.
Other parts of the world are bulging with roof top solar panels and wind generators on ridge lines. See western Turkey and Greece.
7
The Humor of our situation may be Obvious....Koch is no Joke.
3
In renewable sources of energy the US runs the risk of being taken over by even developing countries. Other than China, both Indian and South Africa have announced big plans for renewable energy. India wants to install 100,000 MW of capacity in the next 5 years and companies are lining up for contracts. Why? Because solar prices there have hit 'grid parity', i.e. the same price as other sources of electricity.
An Indian company is planning to complete a 750MW solar plant using Chinese technology by this time next year, making it the largest of its kind in the world. The US could have easily been in lead by now. I remember President Reagan eliminated solar and wind tax credits in 1986, effectively killing the nascent industry.
Alternatives are here to stay. As Prof Krugman says, the opponents are fossilised.
An Indian company is planning to complete a 750MW solar plant using Chinese technology by this time next year, making it the largest of its kind in the world. The US could have easily been in lead by now. I remember President Reagan eliminated solar and wind tax credits in 1986, effectively killing the nascent industry.
Alternatives are here to stay. As Prof Krugman says, the opponents are fossilised.
6
I absolutely agree with Paul that we should move swiftly forward with renewable energy in every sensible way we can. But not at the cost of losing our recently gained energy independence. Our increased domestic drilling and fracking over the last decade has freed us from such heavy reliance on the Middle East, Russia, and Mexico for energy, and that has enormous economic and geopolitical benefits that cannot be minimized. Let's not kill fossil fuel production until we can maintain energy independence without it.
2
They knew back in the 70's that oil use contributed to global warming and now the ice caps are melting at an alarming rate. the Iraq War was about oil and our interests and money still are getting poured into the Middle East. The GOP is the party of Greed, Oil and their own selfish Prosperity. The Trumpism of ME.
6
I could have used some numbers about the decreasing cost of solar. No one will be better pleased than me if and when this works out, but the fact is the technology is sixty years old and, so far at least, the story has always been that it will be economical pretty soon.
3
Bob,
Solar is now cheaper than building and running, or even just running, natural gas turbines. A business case example is that Pacificorp now has >2000 MW of pending solar independent power production deals in its pipeline. The developers can make money at the utility's avoided cost and they are streaming into the inter mountain west to cash in. More examples? Austin Energy is buying solar at less that $0.05/kWh, Palo Alto at less that $0.07, and many more deals are cooking along. And the cost will continue to come down thru the end of the decade at least due to ~20 separate and independent technology, policy and business strategy lines of innovation.
Solar is now cheaper than building and running, or even just running, natural gas turbines. A business case example is that Pacificorp now has >2000 MW of pending solar independent power production deals in its pipeline. The developers can make money at the utility's avoided cost and they are streaming into the inter mountain west to cash in. More examples? Austin Energy is buying solar at less that $0.05/kWh, Palo Alto at less that $0.07, and many more deals are cooking along. And the cost will continue to come down thru the end of the decade at least due to ~20 separate and independent technology, policy and business strategy lines of innovation.
With the subsidy it turned out be be a good choice for me. I now have only 2 months each year to pay an electric bill. If I had more room I would install more panels so that the whole year would be free. However, there is only so much one can do with an older house.
Any area that has significant periods of sun should require all new homes to have solar panels and should also require that all city parking lots, garages, municipal buildings have solar panels on the roof or over the parking lot.
This is done at Arizona State U.
Any area that has significant periods of sun should require all new homes to have solar panels and should also require that all city parking lots, garages, municipal buildings have solar panels on the roof or over the parking lot.
This is done at Arizona State U.
What is the approach of the fossil fuel industry – the benefactors of Republican politicians -- to climate change? It is always a strategy of never admitting anything beyond the obvious.
The industry spokespersons for years denied that there is any evidence of increased carbon dioxide or global warming. With that stance untenable, they claim the increase is a natural occurrence and then reluctantly move to saying that any human contribution to the increase is negligible. The next position is assuring that, even if human activity is harmful, the social cost of correction outweighs the harm.
The industry then falls back to arguing that the warming is primarily due to how other countries are behaving. The final, default position is to predict confidently that unspecified technological advances will provide a way to correct the warming before lasting damage is done.
Of course, the presently available technology of solar and wind power is summarily rejected by the burners of fossil fuels.
We have heard all of this before, and voters need to show their disgust by letting Republican candidates feel the pain at the ballot box.
The industry spokespersons for years denied that there is any evidence of increased carbon dioxide or global warming. With that stance untenable, they claim the increase is a natural occurrence and then reluctantly move to saying that any human contribution to the increase is negligible. The next position is assuring that, even if human activity is harmful, the social cost of correction outweighs the harm.
The industry then falls back to arguing that the warming is primarily due to how other countries are behaving. The final, default position is to predict confidently that unspecified technological advances will provide a way to correct the warming before lasting damage is done.
Of course, the presently available technology of solar and wind power is summarily rejected by the burners of fossil fuels.
We have heard all of this before, and voters need to show their disgust by letting Republican candidates feel the pain at the ballot box.
3
New panels manufactured in the US have increased efficiency by about 40%. Let's hope they can get it going and that the right wing won't block any funding to help the startup.
For those who are still calling for more fossil fuels and nuclear energy, please see the ideas of some very intelligent and well informed folks at Standford U. at http://thesolutionsproject.org/. Professionals at The Solution Project explain how a goal of 100% renewable energy is indeed possible. We need an Apollo-like program to accelerate our investment in solar, wind and other renewable sources because the need is urgent to keep climate change from crossing the tipping point of no return.
7
If you're really concerned about climate change, you'll be equally supportive of Nuclear Energy.
No, I definitely do not support nuclear energy, for a great number of reasons. I am a PhD physicist which gives me some knowledge of the area. If The Solutions Project doesn't convince you, please check out Amory Lovins at The Rocky Mountain Institute, http://www.rmi.org/ I am citing physicists and engineers who have devoted most of their working lives to renewable energy.
Professor Krugman's thesis here is well taken. But Professor Krugman made a mistake which is surprising for him, being Professor Krugman, to make: His editorial gives the mistaken impression that renewable form of energy, solar, wing, and at least one means of producing gasoline and diesel, using only sunlight and water (See Joule Unlimited at http://www.jouleunlimited.com/, a company in which I have no interests), are still more expensive than fossil fuels. That view is way out of date.
While it is true that per unit price of most fossil fuels is still somewhat higher than their fossil fuels' clean and renewable alternatives, when you include the externalities, the external costs of fossil fuels, such as pollution, injury to the public health, diminishing, if not destroying, the quality of our air and waters, fossil fuels are dramatically more expensive than renewable alternatives.
When he returns to grading papers, perhaps this mistake will make Prof. Krugman more charitable in his grading.
So my presidential choices are an insincere and mendacious incompetent, Hillary Clinton, who has a paranoid, narcissistic, and megalomaniac personality and a record of accomplishment in government that ranges from utter failure and compromising national security with Emailgate to high points of mediocrity, or Republicans Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio, who are saying absurd things even it they don't mean them, or the three stooges of Fiorina, Trump, or Carson.
Alas my country.
While it is true that per unit price of most fossil fuels is still somewhat higher than their fossil fuels' clean and renewable alternatives, when you include the externalities, the external costs of fossil fuels, such as pollution, injury to the public health, diminishing, if not destroying, the quality of our air and waters, fossil fuels are dramatically more expensive than renewable alternatives.
When he returns to grading papers, perhaps this mistake will make Prof. Krugman more charitable in his grading.
So my presidential choices are an insincere and mendacious incompetent, Hillary Clinton, who has a paranoid, narcissistic, and megalomaniac personality and a record of accomplishment in government that ranges from utter failure and compromising national security with Emailgate to high points of mediocrity, or Republicans Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio, who are saying absurd things even it they don't mean them, or the three stooges of Fiorina, Trump, or Carson.
Alas my country.
You forgot two, on the Democratic side.
Since you're not the only one to do this, I'd better name them: Sanders and O'Malley, with Sanders probably more enthusiastic to break with the past.
Since you're not the only one to do this, I'd better name them: Sanders and O'Malley, with Sanders probably more enthusiastic to break with the past.
Solution: Bernie Sanders!
I am looking very closely at alternatives to Hillary Clinton. Though Senator Webb's virtues and merits should have exalted him to the front of all the other candidates in either party, his prospects, at the moment, seem dim, so I must consider others, which means that I am taking a hard look at Sanders and O'Malley. While Senator Sanders and Gov. O'Malley have deficiencies in policy, approach, political integrity, and/or judicious temperament that make them worse choices than Senator Webb, they are more viable alternatives to Hillary Clinton. And though Senator Sanders worries me as a general election candidate, I like a lot of his positions, though not all, and the appeal of his genuine populist concern for the ordinary American's well being may continue to surprise.
But if I am left with Hillary, I won't support her and won't vote for her.
But if I am left with Hillary, I won't support her and won't vote for her.
The facts don't matter. The only thing that matters is who wins elections and so far the Republicans have won and look like they will continue winning at the local and state level, and probably also at the Congressional level. Anyone who wants to change the course of American energy usage has to engage in the political process and defeat these people at the polls. So far, it doesn't look like that is going to happen. (Precisely the same thing applies to the changes for gun control.)
5
The composition of the House is based on gerrymandering and voter suppression. It's not on the will of the voters. How long do you think they an keep that up?
2
The hostility and spread of misinformation about solar energy is similar to the campaign against electric vehicles (EV). I do about 50% of the charging of my EV at public solar-powered charging stations. Solar power and EVs are a great combination. However, the charging stations are almost always unoccupied when I arrive. Why aren't more people taking advantage of this? The cost of ownership of an EV is less than a conventional gas-powered car, and an EV is a lot more fund to drive. However, this message is not getting out and it I can't help but wonder if there isn't an organized campaign to suppress it.
5
EV's (not hybrids) will never be the vehicle of choice for most one car families, unless they are interested in renting IC cars frequently...at least until you can recharge an EV in, say, 5 minutes or less.
Most people find it disingenuous for EV manufacturers to say "so, pull into a rest stop for a cup of coffee while you charge up for 1/2 hour (to maybe 75% capacity) with the fast chargers (that are not yet widely available)." That scenario, aside from being an unrealistic alternative to filling your tank on the highway, also ignores the queuing factor - how many charging stations do you need to handle the number of cars per hour at peak times. Assume a 5 minute fill vs. a 30 minute charge you would need 6 times as many charging stations as gas pumps at each rest stop.
Plug-in hybrids seem a much better choice than EV's
Most people find it disingenuous for EV manufacturers to say "so, pull into a rest stop for a cup of coffee while you charge up for 1/2 hour (to maybe 75% capacity) with the fast chargers (that are not yet widely available)." That scenario, aside from being an unrealistic alternative to filling your tank on the highway, also ignores the queuing factor - how many charging stations do you need to handle the number of cars per hour at peak times. Assume a 5 minute fill vs. a 30 minute charge you would need 6 times as many charging stations as gas pumps at each rest stop.
Plug-in hybrids seem a much better choice than EV's
What you write applies only to pure battery electric vehicles (BEVs) . With extended range electric vehicles (EREVs), like the Chevy Volt, the range is no more limited than it is for any gas-powered vehicle. The Volt is an electric vehicle until the battery is depleted, then it becomes a highly efficient hybrid. For most people, most of their trips can be done in EV mode only, and they only need one car for all of their trips, no matter how long. Your comment proves my point that either most people don't know this or choose to ignore it.
The other telling silence is the lack of coverage of grid scale energy storage, which turns intermittent sources like wind and solar into base-line power. Grid scale batteries have already sounded the death knell for the "peaker" plants and in Brooklyn, cut the cost of an upgrade in half by obviating the need for a new substation.
In Texas, the grid operator Oncor Energy was about to pull a coup by building 5GW - 20 GWh of storage to buy ultra-cheap wind power at night and pump it out during the mid-day peaks at a much higher rate. The generators had to call in all their legislative favors to stop it.
Free market is as free market does.
In Texas, the grid operator Oncor Energy was about to pull a coup by building 5GW - 20 GWh of storage to buy ultra-cheap wind power at night and pump it out during the mid-day peaks at a much higher rate. The generators had to call in all their legislative favors to stop it.
Free market is as free market does.
5
I have read that solar panels are becoming increasingly cheap and efficient for so long that my eyes glaze over. I have a neighbor who sells solar installations to both commercial and private individuals, so I had her do an audit to determine my needs. I have a 60 foot long roof sloped at 25 degrees, so I am a perfect candidate for solar panels.
I wanted an independent system, since my local power company's buy back price per kilowatt is less that 1/10th of the price I currently pay. After accounting for the need for a transformer/rectifier to convert panel DC to house AC, batteries to store adequate night-time or rainy day reserve, and the panels themselves, I was looking at close to $15,000 startup cost. My current electric bill averages S1500 a year over the past 5 years.
The expected life of the solar installation is 8-10 years, therefore cost is a wash (assuming no repairs.) What is my incentive to do convert?
I wanted an independent system, since my local power company's buy back price per kilowatt is less that 1/10th of the price I currently pay. After accounting for the need for a transformer/rectifier to convert panel DC to house AC, batteries to store adequate night-time or rainy day reserve, and the panels themselves, I was looking at close to $15,000 startup cost. My current electric bill averages S1500 a year over the past 5 years.
The expected life of the solar installation is 8-10 years, therefore cost is a wash (assuming no repairs.) What is my incentive to do convert?
2
Wow. So it is already a wash even when not counting the amount of money that you should be getting from your local utility for selling them your excess day time energy generation. That sounds like great progress to me.
If you add in the society costs of government subsidies to fossil fuel producers and the diseases (asthma etc) exasperated by and climate change caused by burning fossil fuels it sounds like a clear win.
If you add in the society costs of government subsidies to fossil fuel producers and the diseases (asthma etc) exasperated by and climate change caused by burning fossil fuels it sounds like a clear win.
1
I'm skeptical also but using the economics of an individual roof make no sense. Every roof installation needs to be separately designed and for not much actual area and generating capacity. The height makes it dangerous to install and maintain. If your roof starts to leak, then the panels make it harder to repair. Large solar farms are vastly more cost effective to set up, maintain and replace. On the San Francisco Peninsula, its the fashion to have solar on your roof but very costly and the vast rolling hills 25 miles east get much more sun and aren't being used for anything else. All the rooftop panels combined on the Peninsula probably aren't 2 square miles which is a drop in the bucket relative to the vacant sunny land to the east to say nothing of Nevada and Arizona.
1
Look up the life span of a solar installation and then find a reputable installer. If your neighbor's installation only lasts 10 years her system must be substandard. Most systems are warranted for more than that - 25 years for some. Also do you think your electricity costs will stay at $1500 a year over the next ten years?
1
Soon renewable energy will be more economically feasible than fossil fuels in America and, ironically, the market will conveniently take care of what the Republicans desperately try to stop. I'm optimistic.
2
Are the wingers really so ignorant or do they just think the rest of us are ignorant. I suspect both. The Endangered Species Act, as reported in an article in today's Times, passed the house of representatives with only four no votes. That was 1973 and tricky dick was president. What has happened in such a short time. Today the republicans are doing everything they can to do away with all environmental laws and regulations. They act as if they and their children and grandchildren live and will live in a different world.
93
Well, "their children and grandchildren" "WILL live in a different world:"
they will inherit the great wealth provided by big oil to their Republican
politician parents and grandparents.
they will inherit the great wealth provided by big oil to their Republican
politician parents and grandparents.
1
Their children and grandchildren - and ours, too - will live in a different world. It will be one where there are no wild large mammals, where water is scarce, birds song is no more, where sunlight is deadly, and where wars rage continuously as people driven by necessity migrate to regions less hostile to life, mainly in the north. I expect thinly populated Russia will be overrun pretty quickly and Africa will be emptied out near the equator.
The waters are rising, the winds are blowing huge storms and we fiddle along as if nothing were happening. I only hope a twister takes out the Koch's homestead in Kansas. They won't be there, but it will still be poetic justice.
The waters are rising, the winds are blowing huge storms and we fiddle along as if nothing were happening. I only hope a twister takes out the Koch's homestead in Kansas. They won't be there, but it will still be poetic justice.
Solar and wind power are sold to the American public as having no adverse environmental impact. This is simply not so. Both have large impacts whey scaled to the size necessary to replace fossil and nuclear fuel for power. And there will still be a need for back up. There is no free lunch. Wind and solar do not fly planes and batteries for cars are not an environmentally friendly item.
The last time I drove through Texas and Oklahoma on I40, I saw thousands of wind turbines. Guess some Republicans actually like wind power.
3
Every house that's sold should be required to have solar power; it's like connecting to the water, gas or electric lines--a utility that we need to function in our society. Germany is the leader is solar energy, and they're hardly a sunny haven; if they can do it, then we can do it.
8
Ho hum...and the NYT, beyond the opinion pages, has little to report on this in the Business section or the US section...or for that matter, the World Section. How is it that countries that we dismiss from our every day thoughts are so much further ahead in alternative energy development than we are? I would like to see an "Energy Section" so that we can be better informed (sorry Dr. Krugman, your detractors probably don't read your columns, and THEY are the ones who need an education and the FACTS).
6
Knuckle draggers are incapable of progressive thought, let alone action. I'm sure neither of them ever had an original idea, in their small, short lives. Bush! and the Rube are beholden to industrial fossils, the melted kind and the human kind.
5
knuckle walkers is the term used by evolutionary biologists.
Please explain to me why there are no wind farms off of Long Island? Provincetown, MA? Key West, FL? Martha's Vineyard? All of the renewables like wind are fine as long as they are in someone else's backyard, obstructing someone else's view, 'polluting' some other vista, but in too many perfectly good locations, cocktail party environmentalists have said "Not here!" in loud numbers.
Solar is a great technology - for half a day - assuming it is not cloudy. You must always have redundant capacity. Again, it is oh so generous of folks who live in extremely high density urban housing to recommend a switch to alternate technologies that are singularly inappropriate for furnishing their own electric power. Enlighten us on where ConEd will build its solar farm and wind ranch for the NYC area...
Solar is a great technology - for half a day - assuming it is not cloudy. You must always have redundant capacity. Again, it is oh so generous of folks who live in extremely high density urban housing to recommend a switch to alternate technologies that are singularly inappropriate for furnishing their own electric power. Enlighten us on where ConEd will build its solar farm and wind ranch for the NYC area...
5
So we can build the new nuke plant upwind from your kid's school, put the new refinery in your neighborhood, and gasify coal next door to your church? good to know.
By the way, your claims about solar are just plain silly, as is the notion that every form of energy generation--yes, including nukes; Fukushima crashed because the diesel backups flooded out--doesn't break down, need maintenance, or otherwise require supplementation.
By the way, your claims about solar are just plain silly, as is the notion that every form of energy generation--yes, including nukes; Fukushima crashed because the diesel backups flooded out--doesn't break down, need maintenance, or otherwise require supplementation.
5
Actually, there is a wind farm being built, even as we speak, off of Block Island RI, that will provide all of the energy for the island, and then some. It appears that the original Cape Cod plan was scuttled because it was too ambitious, but there are further plans afoot. as I understand it, and the Cape Wind project is alive. Here's a link to an article (admittedly Wikipedia) that lists some of people who opposed the Cape Wind project. With last names like, Romney, Brown, and Koch, I can only assume that this is who you identified as "cocktail party environmentalists" in your comment.
I live in an urban area and my view across a nearby river contains several tall, stately windmills. They are beautiful, both for themselves and for what they do -- capture the wind and transform it into our light and heat. They're much prettier than the oil wells dotting the landscape I grew up in (although we had windmills there too). Humankind has used the energy of wind and water for thousands of years. They will will be there long after the oil is used up.
77
More than just being the party of old energy, above all other things the GOP is the party of increasing the concentration of wealth and power for those who already monopolize it.
9
Yet another example of why, as I tell my friends and colleagues, the Republican Party has become the Stupid Party. Intelligent people need to vote with their feet.
10
It’s ironic that some of most noteworthy achievements in environmental and conservation policy were brought about by Republicans—most notably Theodore Roosevelt and Richard Nixon. However, the conservationism wing died decades ago.
The Republican opposition to solar is symptom of a larger problem: Republicans haven’t had an environmental or conservation policy in decades—arguably since Richard Nixon. Republicans can use the tired old “job killer” argument all they want to oppose renewable energy and environmental regulations all they want. However, when push comes to shove, do we really want to turn the United States in a place like China, where water and air pollution are causing major health problems?
I don't--I happen to like having clean air and water.
The Republican opposition to solar is symptom of a larger problem: Republicans haven’t had an environmental or conservation policy in decades—arguably since Richard Nixon. Republicans can use the tired old “job killer” argument all they want to oppose renewable energy and environmental regulations all they want. However, when push comes to shove, do we really want to turn the United States in a place like China, where water and air pollution are causing major health problems?
I don't--I happen to like having clean air and water.
122
Hasn't anyone else picked up on the Koch Bros business model? Tip offs: They happen to have the largest coal distributorship in Wisconsin, hence the support for Scott Walker; they also snagged lycra and carpet businesses, ones that happen to have a very large carbon footprint. By analogy: corner a market on steam powered tractors protect it by outlawing diesel engines - with the power of lobbying and donating to campaigns. Way cheaper than innovation.
93
"Why has the right become so hostile to technologies that look more and more like the wave of the future?"
The answer is implicit to the question --- IF we used the proper terminology for these folks. For, they're not conservatives, they're reactionaries. Moreover, liberals should return the following favor: We're now "progressives", pushed to that label by the right's denigration of "liberal." Fine, let's try to force them away from "conservative" by pushing the opposite number, "REGRESSIVE." One group wants progress, the other wishes to regress, to move backward toward the stone age, with no vision toward the future.
The answer is implicit to the question --- IF we used the proper terminology for these folks. For, they're not conservatives, they're reactionaries. Moreover, liberals should return the following favor: We're now "progressives", pushed to that label by the right's denigration of "liberal." Fine, let's try to force them away from "conservative" by pushing the opposite number, "REGRESSIVE." One group wants progress, the other wishes to regress, to move backward toward the stone age, with no vision toward the future.
22
The Republican party and big/old energy have come to represent threats to our long-term national security, just as greed and arrogance have always threats to humanity.
The character of the people who run the GOP, as well those who run energy companies is represented clearly by Dick Cheney. They are arrogant, belligerent men who enjoy showing the world what tough guys they are by harming others while in the process of making their fortunes.
The best living contrast of character to the Dick Cheney's of the world would be President Carter. If you had to give your children over to the care of one of these two men, Who would you choose?
Your answer will say a lot about who you are... and what your children will have to live with for the rest of their lives.
The character of the people who run the GOP, as well those who run energy companies is represented clearly by Dick Cheney. They are arrogant, belligerent men who enjoy showing the world what tough guys they are by harming others while in the process of making their fortunes.
The best living contrast of character to the Dick Cheney's of the world would be President Carter. If you had to give your children over to the care of one of these two men, Who would you choose?
Your answer will say a lot about who you are... and what your children will have to live with for the rest of their lives.
18
"Earlier this year Newsweek published an op-ed article purporting to show that the true cost of wind power was much higher than it seems. But it turned out that the article contained major factual errors, and its author had failed to disclose that he was the Charles W. Koch professor at Utah State, and a fellow of a Koch- and ExxonMobil-backed think tank."
In May 2015, Newsweek featured a cover story on genetically engineered crops that was essentially a pro-industry pr piece for manufacturers of GE seeds, like monsanto, Dupont and Syngenta. It too had factual errors and was dismissive of the World Health Organization's listing of glyphosate -- an herbicide used on the vast majority of GE crops -- as a "probable carcinogen."
The media always needs to be scrutinized for hidden agendas, but Newsweek's rejection of renewables has -- thankfully -- gotten the exposure it deserves.
We'll be watching you, Newsweek.
In May 2015, Newsweek featured a cover story on genetically engineered crops that was essentially a pro-industry pr piece for manufacturers of GE seeds, like monsanto, Dupont and Syngenta. It too had factual errors and was dismissive of the World Health Organization's listing of glyphosate -- an herbicide used on the vast majority of GE crops -- as a "probable carcinogen."
The media always needs to be scrutinized for hidden agendas, but Newsweek's rejection of renewables has -- thankfully -- gotten the exposure it deserves.
We'll be watching you, Newsweek.
10
It's curious that Newsweek would run such a "cover story," given that the journal hasn't had a cover since it stopped paper editions a couple years ago.
I agree with Dr. Krugman on renewable energy and conservation are desirable, but can you conclude from that someone is an "enemy of the sun" when she or he "barely address the topic" ?
in 2015, yes.
For some in politics, it is sufficient that “the duty of the opposition is to oppose.” The need to suggest alternatives, to curb internal radicalism and irresponsibility, is irrelevant. Truth and reality have little substance in the shadows of political gamesmanship.
http://lifeamongtheordinary.blogspot.com/2013/11/compromise-is-not-dirty...
http://lifeamongtheordinary.blogspot.com/2013/11/compromise-is-not-dirty...
2
Wind, solar and other renewable energy sources have a part in our national energy strategy, but only a small part. The problem is they are variable and we have no technology for energy storage. Until that changes they can only play a very limited role.
There are only two existing technologies that can provide the massive amounts of base load power America needs: Hydrocarbon (coal & oil) and nuclear. Both technologies have serious drawbacks. We have enough hydrocarbon sources on US soil to power our country, independently of the rest of the world, for hundreds of years. The same thing applies to nuclear, we have the resources within our borders to be energy independent. The fact that we have chosen not to use our resources has led to 4 wars, tens of thousands dead and $Trillions wasted.
We need three things:
- A national energy policy that will plot the path from where we are now to a non-hydrocarbon based energy supply within 50 years or less.
- Research on how we can use our existing hydrocarbon fuels during the transition period without destroying the planet.
- Research on non-hydrocarbon energy sources that can generate enough power for our country, hydrogen & fusion are possible options.
We cannot continue was we are. Our pollution and wars over oil are destroying our country. It is time to plot a path to a better future.
There are only two existing technologies that can provide the massive amounts of base load power America needs: Hydrocarbon (coal & oil) and nuclear. Both technologies have serious drawbacks. We have enough hydrocarbon sources on US soil to power our country, independently of the rest of the world, for hundreds of years. The same thing applies to nuclear, we have the resources within our borders to be energy independent. The fact that we have chosen not to use our resources has led to 4 wars, tens of thousands dead and $Trillions wasted.
We need three things:
- A national energy policy that will plot the path from where we are now to a non-hydrocarbon based energy supply within 50 years or less.
- Research on how we can use our existing hydrocarbon fuels during the transition period without destroying the planet.
- Research on non-hydrocarbon energy sources that can generate enough power for our country, hydrogen & fusion are possible options.
We cannot continue was we are. Our pollution and wars over oil are destroying our country. It is time to plot a path to a better future.
6
We need not only electrical energy, but liquid fuel energy. Think about it: Almost all current cars, trucks, trains, and planes use either gasoline or diesel fuel. Unless these means of travel become electrically powered, we'll need these fuels. And I doubt that aircraft will be electric, ever.
To complement the renewable energy sources such as wind and solar, we need to co-develop energy storage technologies. Also, it seems eminently practical to set up our energy grids so that renewables are the backbone of supply (as on hot summer days when air conditioning consumes a great share of our electricity) while fossil fuels act as back-up when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing.
Translation: drill, baby, drill.
And who cares about conservation, rational use of resources, or planning ahead.
And who cares about conservation, rational use of resources, or planning ahead.
We have become inured to the horrors of the Republican party. What Krugman points out in terms of climate change denial and being wedded to the idea that somehow transitioning to greener energy sources is bad for jobs and the economy, is just a long list of policy positions that have been discredited.The modern day tragedy of this country is the scourge that this party presents.
10
"Why has the right become so hostile to technologies that look more and more like the wave of the future?" Simply put they like to live life in an imagined past.
8
Weave those men of straw. Imagine yourself so much more intelligent than anyone who disagrees with you.
Actually in 2nd presidential debate, Rubio stated that He is not going to smother US economy with nonsense climate change regulations.
I believe this type of talk is very cliché and it is really not American, Yes American soul is for finding the way to overcome impossible, Remember Apollo project. Today some uneducated ilk thinks that it is staged in Hollywood.
Energy challenge is the same, We will do it one way or another, but If America is going to be the following one on this issue , shame on us.
This will be the loss of our most important value, innovation and progress. You can drill as much as gas and oil, but that is technologically dead end.
I hope we can overcome these backward thinking people.
I believe this type of talk is very cliché and it is really not American, Yes American soul is for finding the way to overcome impossible, Remember Apollo project. Today some uneducated ilk thinks that it is staged in Hollywood.
Energy challenge is the same, We will do it one way or another, but If America is going to be the following one on this issue , shame on us.
This will be the loss of our most important value, innovation and progress. You can drill as much as gas and oil, but that is technologically dead end.
I hope we can overcome these backward thinking people.
5
This is the new pernicious attack by the Koch brothers: they have given money to over 160 universities, with strings attached.
When, for example, the Charles Koch Foundation in 2011 pledged $1.5 million to Florida State University’s economics department, a contract between the foundation and university stipulated that a Koch-appointed advisory committee select professors and conduct annual evaluations, the Tampa Bay Times reported.
Thank you, Professor Krugman, for pointing out that Newsweek published an op-ed piece by one of their peons.
When, for example, the Charles Koch Foundation in 2011 pledged $1.5 million to Florida State University’s economics department, a contract between the foundation and university stipulated that a Koch-appointed advisory committee select professors and conduct annual evaluations, the Tampa Bay Times reported.
Thank you, Professor Krugman, for pointing out that Newsweek published an op-ed piece by one of their peons.
12
Every time I take the cover off my Texas Instruments TI-30SLR+ calculator I am in awe. I purchased it from an office supply store in Manhattan in 1984. I have been using it ever since and it has its original solar-powered battery.
It not only works, but looks like a current iPhone. It's still beautiful.
We have had this technology for a really long time, so why has it been, as far as I know, 'lost' or not carried on? Oh, of course, who can make money from a solar battery that has lasted now, thirty-one years?
Silly me. Silly us.
It not only works, but looks like a current iPhone. It's still beautiful.
We have had this technology for a really long time, so why has it been, as far as I know, 'lost' or not carried on? Oh, of course, who can make money from a solar battery that has lasted now, thirty-one years?
Silly me. Silly us.
9
I still have the TI calculator that my dad bought me before I headed off to college in 1981. Still works, original battery, is a pleasure to use.
Much of the instrument you describe is made of plastic a petroleum product.
The solutions to the problems described in today's columns by both Paul Krugman and Charles M Blow start in the same place.
Forty-five years ago Milton Friedman published an op-ed in Time Magazine entitled "A Friedman Doctrine: The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits."
In declaring the Friedman Doctrine he contradicted centuries of corporate law that held the state grants the corporation valuable privileges that enable its profit seeking motives in return for the corporation serving or at least respecting the public good. The Friedman Doctrine made those privileges freebies and transformed responsible corporate citizens into the organizational equivalent of adolescent sociopaths.
For all the brilliance of his Nobel winning work on monetary policy, the Friedman Doctrine is a turkey for all time. Maybe he didn't say anything Hayek or Rand hadn't before but he made this turkey respectable & that is much worse.
A great resource on the history of this issue is Thomas P Byrne's "False Profits: Reviving the Corporation's Public Purpose." 57 UCLA L Rev Disc 25.
Forty-five years ago Milton Friedman published an op-ed in Time Magazine entitled "A Friedman Doctrine: The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits."
In declaring the Friedman Doctrine he contradicted centuries of corporate law that held the state grants the corporation valuable privileges that enable its profit seeking motives in return for the corporation serving or at least respecting the public good. The Friedman Doctrine made those privileges freebies and transformed responsible corporate citizens into the organizational equivalent of adolescent sociopaths.
For all the brilliance of his Nobel winning work on monetary policy, the Friedman Doctrine is a turkey for all time. Maybe he didn't say anything Hayek or Rand hadn't before but he made this turkey respectable & that is much worse.
A great resource on the history of this issue is Thomas P Byrne's "False Profits: Reviving the Corporation's Public Purpose." 57 UCLA L Rev Disc 25.
9
I fail to see how any energy source is in competition with another.
We need to over-supply the USA...that is NOrth America(think NAFTA) with energy.
Meaning we need to use all available resources:
1. Nuclear
2. Hydro
3. Coal/Gas/Oil
4. Wind
5. the REAL powerhouse.....Solar.
.........
Oil is the most heavily subsidized fuel resource in our present faltering economy.
If we consider the hidden costs of "Free military protection" of private oil fields and pipelines in the Middle East....all used to supply CHINA with energy..........We soon realize that we are effectively "selling our enemies the rope they use to hang us with!!"
If Corporations think that Chinese Businessmen will let them survive inside China's Legal System......fine.
But they are making a serious mistake.
Exxon, Mobil, BP, etc........had best recognize they need to stay within the nurturing confines of the American LEgal System if they seek to survive and profit in the 21st Century.
And that means "diversify" into other stable, and SECURE energy sources..........beyond oil/gas/coal.
We need to over-supply the USA...that is NOrth America(think NAFTA) with energy.
Meaning we need to use all available resources:
1. Nuclear
2. Hydro
3. Coal/Gas/Oil
4. Wind
5. the REAL powerhouse.....Solar.
.........
Oil is the most heavily subsidized fuel resource in our present faltering economy.
If we consider the hidden costs of "Free military protection" of private oil fields and pipelines in the Middle East....all used to supply CHINA with energy..........We soon realize that we are effectively "selling our enemies the rope they use to hang us with!!"
If Corporations think that Chinese Businessmen will let them survive inside China's Legal System......fine.
But they are making a serious mistake.
Exxon, Mobil, BP, etc........had best recognize they need to stay within the nurturing confines of the American LEgal System if they seek to survive and profit in the 21st Century.
And that means "diversify" into other stable, and SECURE energy sources..........beyond oil/gas/coal.
64
The corporations have taken care of this. TPP is being approved now. It is the end of sovereignty for the nations involved as corporations can sue governments for "lost" profits from various regulations to protect the environment and populace.
Boy, am I glad I am not young.
Boy, am I glad I am not young.
1
If we counted the tax money we spend keeping open the sea lanes with our Navy for the oil tankers (of all Nations) we would see we are paying closer to $10 per gallon of gas.
1
I was in the solar business back in the late 70's. It was mostly thermal then not electric. The tax credit policies definitely had some problems but they were all taken care of when His Majesty Ronald Reagan drove a stake through the heart of the Industry.
7
Coal, oil and gas are long dead plants and animals, products of photosynthesis of sunlight. They can be burned to provide expanding gases which can provide thrust that moves pistons, turbines, or jet propulsion and high concentrated heat to boil water into steam which can provide thrust for turbines to generate electricity from generator machines. Photo electric cells produce an electric current from the photo electric effect of light shining upon surfaces. Wind and water flows can provide thrust to generate electricity from generator machines. Nuclear fuel is used to heat water to make steam to turn electrical generator machines, just a lot more efficiently that coal, oil or gas heated water does. We need to replace our use of fossil fuels with renewable sources that do not produce so much green house gases, sooner or later because they cannot be replaced for millions of years. Had in not been for climate change and geopolitical conflicts over fossil fuels, we might have a century or more to solve the problem, but we need to solve it now. The Republicans simply are failing to look up to see where we are headed and what it means. Global warming will undo two centuries of work and leave everybody poor if it continues to be accelerated by human activities. It is past time to address the problems while the Republicans simply refuse to address them.
3
I am yet to find even a single issue where I can agree with the Republican position. Of course, one has to navigate the red herrings and fluffs such as 'freedom', 'liberty', etc. Which mean absolutely nothing in the abstract.
If you follow the Republicans' way of government -- calling it governing is a bit generous -- you would consistently be assigned the second alternative in New Hampshire's motto -- "Live free or die".
Most of the population would be choking in the pollution, not able to afford to see a doctor, being the unfettered capitalism's fodder way before the certainty of getting wiped out by the climate change.
If you follow the Republicans' way of government -- calling it governing is a bit generous -- you would consistently be assigned the second alternative in New Hampshire's motto -- "Live free or die".
Most of the population would be choking in the pollution, not able to afford to see a doctor, being the unfettered capitalism's fodder way before the certainty of getting wiped out by the climate change.
8
I agree. I lived in Sweden and can easily ascertain that average Swede has way more freedoms than average American. Furthermore, those freedoms are guaranteed by the goverment, as a sole people's representative. In this country we have people trained to hate government so they are more volnerable to all kind of propaganda. Access to information? How one can have an unobstructed access to information when major TV and radio outlets are coeporate owned and have their agenda? And State governments are corporate owned. Examples? North Caroline, Florida, limit access to Global Warming date by passing specific legislation. Most other states limit collection of data on gun violance so the public remains dumbed down. And it goes on and on, and on. Of course, one can argue that id you want, you can find the relevant information. But then again, with the massive corporate and right wing ideological propaganda, which is in fact much more effective than any communist propaganda ever was, the American public is poorly informed and confused.
Would you want to take a white water rafting trip in West Virginia where state prohibits collection of water samples for heavy metals because coal industry did lobby for it? How much can you expose yourself to these toxins knowing that mountain top mining is going on upstream and the incident of all kind of diseases is significantly higher in these areas?
Would you want to take a white water rafting trip in West Virginia where state prohibits collection of water samples for heavy metals because coal industry did lobby for it? How much can you expose yourself to these toxins knowing that mountain top mining is going on upstream and the incident of all kind of diseases is significantly higher in these areas?
Mr. Krugman fails to make the important comparison between "centralized" energy production and its required grid transport infrastructure AND the "de-centralized energy production model and its requirements for using the same infrastructure.
Wind Energy has been developed "Texas Style", which is to say "bigger is better". Erroneously following the time honored "centralized" energy production model. They build GigaWatt Sized "Wind Farms" in the middle of no-where and then attempt to transport the energy across hundreds of miles of grid, losing approximately 40% of the energy in the process..............in effect its the ole Texas Shell Game of "going thru the motions" and making your profits off the Govt Subsidy for Production.......exactly the con-game that made Enron so successful!!
......
Wind Energy becomes incredibly cost effective, if we begin to apply a "de-centralized" production model. In this model, the Propellers are dispersed through-out the rural regions of the Plains(where all the wind energy is harvested). The power produced is used locally in each town or farm center, using the grid power only when the wind power falls short. Not only is this cheaper energy for the local, rural communities, it off loads the Central Power Producers enough to give them capacity to sell in the Industrial Areas at more competitive rates.
Once USA recognizes that cheap energy is a major "competitive edge"......the real industrial jobs will come back.
Wind Energy has been developed "Texas Style", which is to say "bigger is better". Erroneously following the time honored "centralized" energy production model. They build GigaWatt Sized "Wind Farms" in the middle of no-where and then attempt to transport the energy across hundreds of miles of grid, losing approximately 40% of the energy in the process..............in effect its the ole Texas Shell Game of "going thru the motions" and making your profits off the Govt Subsidy for Production.......exactly the con-game that made Enron so successful!!
......
Wind Energy becomes incredibly cost effective, if we begin to apply a "de-centralized" production model. In this model, the Propellers are dispersed through-out the rural regions of the Plains(where all the wind energy is harvested). The power produced is used locally in each town or farm center, using the grid power only when the wind power falls short. Not only is this cheaper energy for the local, rural communities, it off loads the Central Power Producers enough to give them capacity to sell in the Industrial Areas at more competitive rates.
Once USA recognizes that cheap energy is a major "competitive edge"......the real industrial jobs will come back.
5
First, the U.S. Energy Information Agency (E.I.A.) estimates that electricity transmission losses average about 6% (NOT, repeat NOT, "40%") in the U.S.
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=105&t=3
Next, you are correct that from the Texas panhandle to the Dakotas comprise a wind resource of huge importance, but if wind is to be a significant contributor in the use of electricity where it is needed, it must either be transported or generated in other parts of the country. This map shows that both must be used and that wind power is available across the country:
http://energy.gov/eere/articles/mapping-frontier-new-wind-power-potential
Solar power generation by PV (photovoltaic) is also a good source of distributed power as homeowners and businesses put arrays on roofs (and on walls in the future) across the country. Concentrated solar power, where mirror arrays concentrate the sun's rays on heat collecting tanks of liquid which are vaporized to drive turbines (like steam turbines from burning natural gas). As energy storage through latent heat storage in phase transition of certain salts, and battery development make this a more 24/7 capability, this will be a strong source of energy in areas of the west with high percentages of unclouded sunlight, but areas that cannot support large populations for manufacturing, etc. Therefore this energy must be transmitted to where it can effectively be used.
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=105&t=3
Next, you are correct that from the Texas panhandle to the Dakotas comprise a wind resource of huge importance, but if wind is to be a significant contributor in the use of electricity where it is needed, it must either be transported or generated in other parts of the country. This map shows that both must be used and that wind power is available across the country:
http://energy.gov/eere/articles/mapping-frontier-new-wind-power-potential
Solar power generation by PV (photovoltaic) is also a good source of distributed power as homeowners and businesses put arrays on roofs (and on walls in the future) across the country. Concentrated solar power, where mirror arrays concentrate the sun's rays on heat collecting tanks of liquid which are vaporized to drive turbines (like steam turbines from burning natural gas). As energy storage through latent heat storage in phase transition of certain salts, and battery development make this a more 24/7 capability, this will be a strong source of energy in areas of the west with high percentages of unclouded sunlight, but areas that cannot support large populations for manufacturing, etc. Therefore this energy must be transmitted to where it can effectively be used.
I get a sense the Dr. Krugman is mixing apples (oil and gas) with oranges (wind and solar), and in so doing is constructing his usual anti-Republican mantra.
Regardless of how much solar and wind power are generated, we'll still need oil and gas-fired power plants for the foreseeable future. That is of course unless liberals decide nuclear is a better option and allow the waster storage facility in Nevada to open.
In either case our power companies still still need to build and maintain plants and the distribution network. Those houses with rooftop solar still need the distribution system and need to pay their share regardless of how much power they generate themselves.
And who are the groups that oppose offshore wind farms and large solar arrays in the Mojave desert? Not Republicans.
Regardless of how much solar and wind power are generated, we'll still need oil and gas-fired power plants for the foreseeable future. That is of course unless liberals decide nuclear is a better option and allow the waster storage facility in Nevada to open.
In either case our power companies still still need to build and maintain plants and the distribution network. Those houses with rooftop solar still need the distribution system and need to pay their share regardless of how much power they generate themselves.
And who are the groups that oppose offshore wind farms and large solar arrays in the Mojave desert? Not Republicans.
4
Beyond the fact that it isn't just liberals who opposed Yucca Mountain, the minor tech detail about rooftop solar is that electric companies have been fairly successful at passing laws imposing fees on them for putting power into the system.
Koch Industries has mounted sustained campaigns against wind power in Kansas, so far stymied because Kansas farmers like earning additional money by leasing small squares of their fields for erection of wind turbines.
That is just one example of (Republican) Koch Industries (and other fossil fuel extractors) attempting to stifle the development of sustainable energy.
That is just one example of (Republican) Koch Industries (and other fossil fuel extractors) attempting to stifle the development of sustainable energy.
Wind and solar energy are legal in the US. Anyone willing to pay 4 times more for intermittent power missing during the winter will not face prosecution.
Why would a true economist be so willing to have such things IMPOSED unto others?
Why would a true economist be so willing to have such things IMPOSED unto others?
2
Why would a right-winger opposed to Big Government want to make small-scale, individually-cintrolled power generation illegal?
Maybe because its this way or we are all dead. Maybe because the cost you site is not true. Maybe because energy will continue as long as the wind turbine and solar panes are maintained, without digging up or transporting anything that must be processed. That enough of a reason for you?
The cost of sustainable energy is no longer anywhere near 4 times more than fossil fuel costs:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/business/energy-environment/solar-and-...
Professor Krugman made that point in his oped, but I guess you ignored it or didn't read it that carefully.
Economists also deal with external costs, those costs or profits that others, not party to a transaction, experience. Adam Smith, in his "The Wealth of Nations," and the use of fossil fuels have many negative externalities, from mercury, arsenic and other toxic pollutants, to the costs of storm damage from larger storm systems from hurricanes to the system that devastated the Carolinas this weekend. The number of $billion storms has been increasing yearly, particularly in the U.S. and developed countries but also in underdeveloped countries. The efficiency of agriculture is dropping as plants do not grow as well when located outside their normal temperature ranges and with different average precipitations. While it is probably 100 or more years away, moving all the big coastal cities to avoid the rising seas (particularly during storms) will cost $trillions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/business/energy-environment/solar-and-...
Professor Krugman made that point in his oped, but I guess you ignored it or didn't read it that carefully.
Economists also deal with external costs, those costs or profits that others, not party to a transaction, experience. Adam Smith, in his "The Wealth of Nations," and the use of fossil fuels have many negative externalities, from mercury, arsenic and other toxic pollutants, to the costs of storm damage from larger storm systems from hurricanes to the system that devastated the Carolinas this weekend. The number of $billion storms has been increasing yearly, particularly in the U.S. and developed countries but also in underdeveloped countries. The efficiency of agriculture is dropping as plants do not grow as well when located outside their normal temperature ranges and with different average precipitations. While it is probably 100 or more years away, moving all the big coastal cities to avoid the rising seas (particularly during storms) will cost $trillions.
1
Paul, I am strongly in favor of renewable energy and want to point out that our addiction to oil has led to a close relationship with Saudi Arabia which has used OUR money to spread their fundamentalist brand of Islam all over the globe. It is difficult for moderate Muslim nations which are poor to resist Saudi money, our money in fact.
At the same time the Republicans do control both the House and the Senate. And I suspect, despite your denials, that most of them want their children to have habitable globe to live in.
But you need to talk to them. If the Republican politicians are in the pocket of oil companies, ordinary Republicans are not. Talk to them. And don't forget to be respectful.
At the same time the Republicans do control both the House and the Senate. And I suspect, despite your denials, that most of them want their children to have habitable globe to live in.
But you need to talk to them. If the Republican politicians are in the pocket of oil companies, ordinary Republicans are not. Talk to them. And don't forget to be respectful.
3
But there's no requirement for "ordinary Republicans," to "talk politely," to anybody else, based on recent evidence, I take it.
Maybe if you guys screamed less, gave up some of the yelling about commies, and quit repealing Obamacare every fifteen minutes...
Seriously, remove the beam from your own eye. Maybe even tell Louis Gohmert to put a cork in it.
Maybe if you guys screamed less, gave up some of the yelling about commies, and quit repealing Obamacare every fifteen minutes...
Seriously, remove the beam from your own eye. Maybe even tell Louis Gohmert to put a cork in it.
We live in a forest but just replacing the light bulbs to either LED or CFLs has brought our KW useage down about 40%. I'm trying to get our local food bank to distribute LED bulbs with the seasonal turkey this year. They are the gift that keeps on giving.
6
Thank you Dr. Krugman for shining some sunlight into this corner of the Republican thought and action on energy and our environment.
BUT why, oh why, oh why, have you chosen not to expose the horrendously backward behavior of Governor John Kasich of Ohio. In 2014, Kasich, doing the bidding of the oil industry, signed two bills into law in Ohio that sent wind energy production out of the state. With less than 10 minutes of legislative debate, the Republican General Assembly essentially ended the development of wind farms in Ohio. And Kasich did just what a puppet of big oil does. He signed the legislation into law.
Please, please, please have one of your research staff take a look into both Ohio House Bill 483 and Ohio Senate Bill 310. This will give you specific and exact knowledge about how one of the contenders for the Republican nomination for President has acted to try to stop the development of clean and renewable energy. I am certain that you will find the "maneuvering" of government in Ohio to be on par with the "Cheney Energy Committee."
BUT why, oh why, oh why, have you chosen not to expose the horrendously backward behavior of Governor John Kasich of Ohio. In 2014, Kasich, doing the bidding of the oil industry, signed two bills into law in Ohio that sent wind energy production out of the state. With less than 10 minutes of legislative debate, the Republican General Assembly essentially ended the development of wind farms in Ohio. And Kasich did just what a puppet of big oil does. He signed the legislation into law.
Please, please, please have one of your research staff take a look into both Ohio House Bill 483 and Ohio Senate Bill 310. This will give you specific and exact knowledge about how one of the contenders for the Republican nomination for President has acted to try to stop the development of clean and renewable energy. I am certain that you will find the "maneuvering" of government in Ohio to be on par with the "Cheney Energy Committee."
8
So, Kasich is being dragged along in a tiny trailer BEHIND the clown car.
Fossilized brains are going to want fossilized fuels. It is no surprise that cons REALLY want to live in the past. They would love to see the 50's and earlier return when women and minorities knew their place and didn't complain.
5
I installed a 12Kw/hr solar array in my home in Tucson, AZ, last August — all paid by SolarCity, approximately $30,000. My experience has been flawless throughout: designing, permitting, installation and follow-up monitoring. One thousand plus homeowners in my general vicinity have done the same. My savings are approximately $140 a month, yearly average. Generation has exceeded consumption by approximately 50%.
Arizona utilities, Tucson Electric Power (TEP) in my case, are now fighting the loss of revenue, discouraging new installations through proposed high hookup fees to the distribution network — only $14 a month in Tucson. But a $50+ fee was already approved last December by the Arizona Corporation Commission, for Arizona’s second largest utility, the Salt River Project, practically driving SolarCity out of the metro Phoenix market — http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/06/29/power-to-the-people
If renewable energy is to have a chance in the USA, the critical component will be a national policy: enacted and protected through legislation and vigilant implementation and enforcement. The investor-owned utilities have already deployed a stealth apparatus with well-funded coffers to wage a relentless war; they have most, if not all, the Republican puppets and some Democrats in their manipulative web — http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2014-3-may-june/feature/throwing-shade-....
May the power be with the people!
Arizona utilities, Tucson Electric Power (TEP) in my case, are now fighting the loss of revenue, discouraging new installations through proposed high hookup fees to the distribution network — only $14 a month in Tucson. But a $50+ fee was already approved last December by the Arizona Corporation Commission, for Arizona’s second largest utility, the Salt River Project, practically driving SolarCity out of the metro Phoenix market — http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/06/29/power-to-the-people
If renewable energy is to have a chance in the USA, the critical component will be a national policy: enacted and protected through legislation and vigilant implementation and enforcement. The investor-owned utilities have already deployed a stealth apparatus with well-funded coffers to wage a relentless war; they have most, if not all, the Republican puppets and some Democrats in their manipulative web — http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2014-3-may-june/feature/throwing-shade-....
May the power be with the people!
236
I live in Tucson as well and installed a self-sufficient system about 8 years ago.
Fabulous decision.
The state of Arizona, instead of allowing exorbitant fees, should MANDATE that any new home construction in the state require a minimum solar installation to at least cover basic electrical needs. There is nothing different from this than mandated basic building and sewage system codes, despite what the GOP might scream to the contrary.
It is criminal that more states to not require basic solar installations in new construction.
We need to reduce our long-term dependency on oil/coal and while we will still consume fossil fuels into the indefinite future we need to supplant this consumption with solar, wind, and, most definitely, nuclear.
Fabulous decision.
The state of Arizona, instead of allowing exorbitant fees, should MANDATE that any new home construction in the state require a minimum solar installation to at least cover basic electrical needs. There is nothing different from this than mandated basic building and sewage system codes, despite what the GOP might scream to the contrary.
It is criminal that more states to not require basic solar installations in new construction.
We need to reduce our long-term dependency on oil/coal and while we will still consume fossil fuels into the indefinite future we need to supplant this consumption with solar, wind, and, most definitely, nuclear.
3
Your experience in Arizona (SolarCity v. Salt River project, with that state siding with the electric company), and this article highlight the problem: Old Energy needs a reason to embrace New Energy. Utility companies are essentially regional monopolies: no competition exists to allow the "market" to provide equilibrium and choice, and given the economic and political clout of utility companies, and their activism, i.e., the Koch's, the renewable market is a competitive disadvantage.
Yet the move from Old Energy to New goes beyond market economics and any esoteric debate on the environment. Oil reserves are in a volatile part of the world, the Mideast. When the cost of oil is calculated, the cost of the Iraq, Afghan, and now Syrian wars, as well as the Veterans Administration, should be included. When the effects of fracking is analyzed, the cost of restoring the landscape and clean-up of rivers and drinking water should be included.
Right now Old Energy does not have any incentive to get into the renewable market. Government at all levels must provide incentives, or disincentives, so that Old Energy embraces the New. Let's remember that Rockefeller's Standard Oil, the precursor to Exxon Mobil, began by selling kerosene. When the market changed, they adapted. Make renewables profitable for Big Energy and they'll change. As always they will follow the money.
Yet the move from Old Energy to New goes beyond market economics and any esoteric debate on the environment. Oil reserves are in a volatile part of the world, the Mideast. When the cost of oil is calculated, the cost of the Iraq, Afghan, and now Syrian wars, as well as the Veterans Administration, should be included. When the effects of fracking is analyzed, the cost of restoring the landscape and clean-up of rivers and drinking water should be included.
Right now Old Energy does not have any incentive to get into the renewable market. Government at all levels must provide incentives, or disincentives, so that Old Energy embraces the New. Let's remember that Rockefeller's Standard Oil, the precursor to Exxon Mobil, began by selling kerosene. When the market changed, they adapted. Make renewables profitable for Big Energy and they'll change. As always they will follow the money.
2
And in Florida, the law is that one cannot sell power to another. An odd coalition of libertarians, true conservatives, and environmentalists are trying to change that restraint of trade.
Politics and odd bed fellow, indeed.
Politics and odd bed fellow, indeed.
1
The line of attack here is that Bush and Rubio for "barely discuss" renewables. instead of saying what they actually discuss Krugman digs up Dick Cheney and some other props to fill in the void. Typical of Krugman this article is another dishonest ruse designed to attack people who disagree with his worldview that government should spend money to smooth out economic outcomes.
1
I guess you don't consider subsidies to the fossil fuel industries government spent money. These highly profitable entities suck at the public teats and you don't see this as public's money. Where is your outrage at that?
3
No, kidding... I was just talking to the guy who stands at the SolarCity booth at Home Depot in Orange County, CA (a Republican stronghold). I asked him how it was going, and he said, "Well, people call me names and flip me off a lot, so I don't say anything unless someone asks me something specific. Some of these folks get really hostile over solar energy." He told me that even when he tells potential customers that solar is just plain CHEAPER, regardless of what environmental advantages there may or not be, a majority of the shoppers just glare at him and walk away. Amazing that the sun has become a polarization force—in politics as well as with polar caps.
253
Tribalism reigns!
It's not the sun that has become polarized, it's the mind-set of those who listen and watch the all-right-wing-media stations funded by giant corporations.
1
Wind and solar costs just keep coming down, thanks to learning by doing.
The latest data on wind costs from DOE's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory:
https://emp.lbl.gov/publications/2014-wind-technologies-ma
For utility solar costs:
https://emp.lbl.gov/publications/utility-scale-solar-2014
The latest data on wind costs from DOE's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory:
https://emp.lbl.gov/publications/2014-wind-technologies-ma
For utility solar costs:
https://emp.lbl.gov/publications/utility-scale-solar-2014
2
The fact is this: If we don't proactively create a comprehensive policy for converting energy production to renewable power, then the effects of climate change will force it on us reactively in the form of ad-hoc responses to instabilities in our energy infrastructure. Fortunately, you don't have to wait for the government to react. You can go ahead and proactively invest in solar yourself.
2
Recognition of our COMMON INTEREST is missing from the current crop of GOP candidates and office holders and their big money supporters.
5
They just can't help themselves. The GOP runs campaigns on the lie of "jobs, jobs, jobs" then legislates only according to its backward ideology. Just look at the PP wild goose chase.
4
If ever the US goes on with solar and wind energy, what will become of the old image of workers working hard and dying on the job.
when are american politicians going to stop inhibiting progress and innovation?
4
Our national political discourse, whether it's on energy or any other issue, is framed and then shaped by propaganda owned and operated by the .1%.
As my late father said during W's administration, "We haven't seen propaganda like this since Germany in the 1930's." I thought that comment was a little over the top. I was wrong.
Atwater, Rove, Ailes and others proved that if you knew demographics you could sway opinion with calculated infomercials - masquerading as "news."
Hence the country's out of touch views on guns, climate, and taxes.
Historians will regard this era of American politics as a time when propaganda triumphed. Krugman's missives notwithstanding, where else can read sensible information on a whole range of topics?
The answer is nowhere, which is why and how voters views are routinely framed and shaped for them. The best part is the voters don't even know it's happening.
Enter Stage Left - one Bernard Sanders. Speaking truth to the .1%ers who control the levers of this propaganda effort. Their response? Give him no coverage. Including in the Gray Lady, by the way.
But voters still flock to his gatherings to hear him speak. That puts fear into the hearts of the .1%ers like nothing else.
The less coverage Sanders gets, the better he's doing. That's how you can tell.
I've sent him a donation, have you?
As my late father said during W's administration, "We haven't seen propaganda like this since Germany in the 1930's." I thought that comment was a little over the top. I was wrong.
Atwater, Rove, Ailes and others proved that if you knew demographics you could sway opinion with calculated infomercials - masquerading as "news."
Hence the country's out of touch views on guns, climate, and taxes.
Historians will regard this era of American politics as a time when propaganda triumphed. Krugman's missives notwithstanding, where else can read sensible information on a whole range of topics?
The answer is nowhere, which is why and how voters views are routinely framed and shaped for them. The best part is the voters don't even know it's happening.
Enter Stage Left - one Bernard Sanders. Speaking truth to the .1%ers who control the levers of this propaganda effort. Their response? Give him no coverage. Including in the Gray Lady, by the way.
But voters still flock to his gatherings to hear him speak. That puts fear into the hearts of the .1%ers like nothing else.
The less coverage Sanders gets, the better he's doing. That's how you can tell.
I've sent him a donation, have you?
243
The rise of the GOP after WWII and, more specifically Vietnam, is very similar to the rise of national socialists in Germany between the first and second WW's.
It includes:
- denial of reasons for losing of the prior war
- blaming minorities and ethnic groups for destroying the country from within
- a fervent adherence to a doctrine (nowadays Christian fundamentalism).
The difference between the radical Germans and todays GOP is that the former would have fully embraced, and likely advanced, solar and wind power.
How ironic is that?
It includes:
- denial of reasons for losing of the prior war
- blaming minorities and ethnic groups for destroying the country from within
- a fervent adherence to a doctrine (nowadays Christian fundamentalism).
The difference between the radical Germans and todays GOP is that the former would have fully embraced, and likely advanced, solar and wind power.
How ironic is that?
1
Yes, i have sent Bernie Sanders a donation. More than that, however, I appreciate your drawing attention to the propaganda of the "vast right wing conspiracy." Sometimes, even though I have compared it to Goebbels in 30's Germany, it crawls into my head. Case in point: the Clinton Foundation. Having heard nothing but negative commentary about it, when I finally read a report on what the Foundation is actually doing, the weight of the negative propaganda was apparent.
Right on, feeling the Bern here and sending him money, too. That said, you can bet the right wing is already prepping to sabotage his campaign, one way or another, to shut him up and keep him from finally giving the American people the straight scoop on the system they are being enslaved by.
1
It is rather simple. The sun does not shine all the time. The wind does not blow all the time. In my state we have thousands of wind generators and building more every day. That is a good thing. But the main problem with wind and solar is that if it's dark and calm you have no power. Our electric gird is an on demand service. There is no stored power. And that's the problem with wind and solar now. No viable economic method to store energy. Until then fossil fuels are the answer.
3
"The sun does not shine all the time."
Don't worry. That's changing even as we speak.
Don't worry. That's changing even as we speak.
Even today the demand for electrical power varies across the day, from high demand during sunlight hours and much less demand at night. But wind power is often high at night so to a good extent solar and wind are complementary. And burning biomass as well as geothermal sources are also a growing source of energy, such that the burning of fossil fuels can be eliminated within a few decades at most if only there is the will-power.
Electric batteries are making big progress, as demonstrated by the almost immediate full subscription of the battery output from Tesla's new battery factory under construction in Nevada. There is also the possible upscaling of storage of latent heat in phase-change salts, as in storing concentrated solar power heat plants.
Electric batteries are making big progress, as demonstrated by the almost immediate full subscription of the battery output from Tesla's new battery factory under construction in Nevada. There is also the possible upscaling of storage of latent heat in phase-change salts, as in storing concentrated solar power heat plants.
Thank you, Mr. Krugman for this column. We need economists to focus more on this issue. Climate change as well as the collateral damage done to the planet and our health will remain challenges for us long after we have left the zero lower bound and related economic issues behind. Indeed, climate change and the conflicts it will cause will be the defining issue of this century. Science has done its job and defined the problem. It is now up to engineers, economists, and policy makers to solve it.
2
For those worried about solar land usage, consider this observation from the MIT Energy Initiative's 'Future of Solar Energy' report (Ch1, p4, https://mitei.mit.edu/futureofsolar):
"Using current PV technology, solar plants covering only about 0.4% of the land area of the continental United States and experiencing average U.S. insolation over the course of a year could produce all the electricity the nation currently consumes. This is roughly half of the land area currently devoted to producing corn for ethanol, just under 7% of the energy content of U.S. gasoline"
Got that? We could generate ALL our electricity from HALF the land we're presently using to grow corn for ethanol! Also note that they're talking about 'current' i.e. available now off the shelf technology -- no breakthroughs required.
"Using current PV technology, solar plants covering only about 0.4% of the land area of the continental United States and experiencing average U.S. insolation over the course of a year could produce all the electricity the nation currently consumes. This is roughly half of the land area currently devoted to producing corn for ethanol, just under 7% of the energy content of U.S. gasoline"
Got that? We could generate ALL our electricity from HALF the land we're presently using to grow corn for ethanol! Also note that they're talking about 'current' i.e. available now off the shelf technology -- no breakthroughs required.
7
Thank you Paul for shining the light where the sun doesn't shine. The Koch connection is no surprise. Koch Industries finger prints are all over this election cycle. No republican dares to challenge them and our Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts has made certain that Koch Brothers' money can have the best government (for them) their money can buy.
3
The reality is that switching from cheaper oil & natural gas to more expensive wind & solar...means that businesses & consumers will have less money to spend and will cut back on spending.
This will slow economic growth and cause job losses.
Is this what we want ????
This will slow economic growth and cause job losses.
Is this what we want ????
6
You're following the Flaw of Averages: assuming that because the average cost of conventional energy is lower than renewable energy, then cost of conventional energy is always lower than lower than renewable.
Renewable energy has advanced to the point where it's often cheaper than conventional energy in specific applications, such as peak-shaving for businesses (to reduce their energy use during high demand times), reducing daytime loads on overloaded power transmission lines, avoiding building expensive new generators or transmission lines, or simply to hedge one's bets against future price hikes in fossil fuels.
Forcing businesses & consumers to use fossil fuels dooms the economy to future of roller coaster energy costs, environmental degradation, and increased risks of all kinds.
Is that what you want ????
Renewable energy has advanced to the point where it's often cheaper than conventional energy in specific applications, such as peak-shaving for businesses (to reduce their energy use during high demand times), reducing daytime loads on overloaded power transmission lines, avoiding building expensive new generators or transmission lines, or simply to hedge one's bets against future price hikes in fossil fuels.
Forcing businesses & consumers to use fossil fuels dooms the economy to future of roller coaster energy costs, environmental degradation, and increased risks of all kinds.
Is that what you want ????
6
In response to Honest and Hardworking: What could be more conservative and conscientious than shelling out $20-30 k of your own money to put in a solar power system to get your own electricity. Knowing that conservative tenets include personal liberty, personal responsibility and the "invisible hand of the marketplace", it seems that solar is a no-brainer to anyone in the GOP.
5
honest? i'd say not.
2
As a conservative, I am all for alternative energy sources that are cheaper and more reliable than fossil fuels. In spite of the government pouring billions of dollars into renewable energy, it is not there yet.
The problem with this whole debate presented by Mr. Krugman is that the money argument cuts both ways. Many have claimed that the right has protected fossil fuels for too long, but the left ignores its own complicity in crony capitalism. Solyndra is one fine example.
Taxpayers footed the half billion dollar bill, while campaign contributors to Obama walked away with pockets full of money. Solyndra was more crony capitalism than green energy and as tax payers we paid Obama's political debt.
This is not all. I am all for clean energy because it keeps the air clean, but not because of global ... I mean climate change. Millions of dollars go into research on global climate change and scientists give the government the answers that they want to get more grant money. Prediction after prediction, based upon "science", goes by the wayside. It went from the ice age to global warming to climate change. Yet, there is no one that can simply explain exactly how CO2 affects climate change like you can a combustion engine. Al Gore and other liberals have made billions. When we can finally really figure out, if it exists, a real connection to climate change and man made causes, I am on board. Until then, I echo Mr. Krugman: Follow the Money.
The problem with this whole debate presented by Mr. Krugman is that the money argument cuts both ways. Many have claimed that the right has protected fossil fuels for too long, but the left ignores its own complicity in crony capitalism. Solyndra is one fine example.
Taxpayers footed the half billion dollar bill, while campaign contributors to Obama walked away with pockets full of money. Solyndra was more crony capitalism than green energy and as tax payers we paid Obama's political debt.
This is not all. I am all for clean energy because it keeps the air clean, but not because of global ... I mean climate change. Millions of dollars go into research on global climate change and scientists give the government the answers that they want to get more grant money. Prediction after prediction, based upon "science", goes by the wayside. It went from the ice age to global warming to climate change. Yet, there is no one that can simply explain exactly how CO2 affects climate change like you can a combustion engine. Al Gore and other liberals have made billions. When we can finally really figure out, if it exists, a real connection to climate change and man made causes, I am on board. Until then, I echo Mr. Krugman: Follow the Money.
"Yet, there is no one that can simply explain exactly how CO2 affects climate change like you can a combustion engine."
Actually, lots of people can give a simple explanation of the greenhouse effect. I teach it in my astronomy and meteorology classes when the students learn why different planets have different temperatures based on their atmospheres and proximity to the Sun.
Here's the explanation...
Sunlight is mostly in the visible wavelengths (around 500 nm wavelength). Our atmosphere is essentially transparent to visible light. So sunlight is transmitted to the earth's surface where some of it is absorbed. The earth, heated from the absorbed sunlight, radiates energy back to space, but in the infrared band (wavelengths about 10 micrometers). CO2 is highly absorptive at this wavelength (as are all greenhouse gases). CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs the outbound IR radiation from earth's surface and re-radiates roughly half of it back downwards, further heating the earth. That's the greenhouse effect in a nutshell. Actually simpler than the thermodynamics of the internal combustion engine.
[The wavelength a body radiates at is proportional to the inverse of the body's surface temperature -- Wien's displacement Law. The Sun, whose surface temperature is about 6000 Kelvin, radiates at 500 nanometers wavelength. The Earth, whose surface temperature is about 300 Kelvin, radiates at 10 micrometers wavelength.]
Actually, lots of people can give a simple explanation of the greenhouse effect. I teach it in my astronomy and meteorology classes when the students learn why different planets have different temperatures based on their atmospheres and proximity to the Sun.
Here's the explanation...
Sunlight is mostly in the visible wavelengths (around 500 nm wavelength). Our atmosphere is essentially transparent to visible light. So sunlight is transmitted to the earth's surface where some of it is absorbed. The earth, heated from the absorbed sunlight, radiates energy back to space, but in the infrared band (wavelengths about 10 micrometers). CO2 is highly absorptive at this wavelength (as are all greenhouse gases). CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs the outbound IR radiation from earth's surface and re-radiates roughly half of it back downwards, further heating the earth. That's the greenhouse effect in a nutshell. Actually simpler than the thermodynamics of the internal combustion engine.
[The wavelength a body radiates at is proportional to the inverse of the body's surface temperature -- Wien's displacement Law. The Sun, whose surface temperature is about 6000 Kelvin, radiates at 500 nanometers wavelength. The Earth, whose surface temperature is about 300 Kelvin, radiates at 10 micrometers wavelength.]
1
"As a result, renewables account for essentially all recent growth in electricity generation capacity in advanced countries."
The US Energy Information Administration projects that fossil fuel consumption will contribute more BTUs towards future energy requirements than renewables between now and 2040.
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/section_energyconsump.cfm
This is important because it means that electric cars and such are driving up consumption of coal in some areas, gas in others. The discussion has to address this else we end up with window-dressing solutions.
Reducing demand must be part of the solution. Mr. Krugman ignores this in the way Republicans ignore renewable energy.
The US Energy Information Administration projects that fossil fuel consumption will contribute more BTUs towards future energy requirements than renewables between now and 2040.
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/section_energyconsump.cfm
This is important because it means that electric cars and such are driving up consumption of coal in some areas, gas in others. The discussion has to address this else we end up with window-dressing solutions.
Reducing demand must be part of the solution. Mr. Krugman ignores this in the way Republicans ignore renewable energy.
After a lot of research, I now believe that, to keep up with front line developments on renewable energy, energy storage, energy efficiency -- the new projects, statistics, and trends, the most indispensable sources are the blog www.CleanTechnica.com and, of course, the Times.
And old energy is winning. In Arizona residential solar customers have to pay the utility to connect to the grid all the while the utility uses their energy. New Mexico Public Service Company (oxymoron) tried that this year, but lost in public opinion (New Mexico is barely more moderate than Arizona these days).
This last session, Republican Governor Martinez vetoed the bipartisan extension of the state tax credit for installing residential solar. She received over $20,000 from the Koch brothers organizations. A connection? According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Jobs and Economic Development Impact (JEDI) model, in 2014 alone the $3 million annual budget for the solar PV portion of the Solar Tax Credit provided approximately $37.9 million in net benefits to the state. With the passage of SB 391 that Martlinez vetoed, these economic benefits would have continued until 2024.
New Mexico isn't a wholly red state yet, but the oil and gas industry certainly controls the largest newspaper in the state, and the governor.
This last session, Republican Governor Martinez vetoed the bipartisan extension of the state tax credit for installing residential solar. She received over $20,000 from the Koch brothers organizations. A connection? According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Jobs and Economic Development Impact (JEDI) model, in 2014 alone the $3 million annual budget for the solar PV portion of the Solar Tax Credit provided approximately $37.9 million in net benefits to the state. With the passage of SB 391 that Martlinez vetoed, these economic benefits would have continued until 2024.
New Mexico isn't a wholly red state yet, but the oil and gas industry certainly controls the largest newspaper in the state, and the governor.
1
Don't forget the recent advances in battery storage of energy by Tesla. I've heard they have invented a battery capable of running a small business for a day or two !! Looks like this new technology is off to a good start. This is only the beginning.....
2
@Phillip,
I lived on a sailboat in Hawai’i where my only energy source was two inline 12 volt car batteries. I kept them charged with a small solar panel I kept propped up facing south while in port. I was able to have running lights and my emergency marine radio on direct current (DC).
The problem is that most appliances run on alternating current (AC) and you then require a converter. A 24 volt deep charging battery with converter may be able to run a 600 watt blender. That’s it! Appliances made to work with direct current are VERY expensive..a blender costs over $150! Why? Not too many people make DC appliances.
Tesla was brilliant and I wish we could have all gotten “free DC” from our backyards. We have a way to go with batteries.
I lived on a sailboat in Hawai’i where my only energy source was two inline 12 volt car batteries. I kept them charged with a small solar panel I kept propped up facing south while in port. I was able to have running lights and my emergency marine radio on direct current (DC).
The problem is that most appliances run on alternating current (AC) and you then require a converter. A 24 volt deep charging battery with converter may be able to run a 600 watt blender. That’s it! Appliances made to work with direct current are VERY expensive..a blender costs over $150! Why? Not too many people make DC appliances.
Tesla was brilliant and I wish we could have all gotten “free DC” from our backyards. We have a way to go with batteries.
1
And then there is Utah, whose enlightened politicians have forbidden the sale of Teslas in the state. The mind is boggled!!! And frightened about the future of this country unless the ideological and religious zealots can be stopped.
Paul, A few questions:
a. instead of a "Right" and "Left" spectrum, fairer to say "Predatory" and "Fair Common Ground"?
b. Why do politicians, lobbyists and the powers-that-be in health-poor states like Kentucky overwhelmingly advertise Coal, Guns & God during the political cycle?
a. instead of a "Right" and "Left" spectrum, fairer to say "Predatory" and "Fair Common Ground"?
b. Why do politicians, lobbyists and the powers-that-be in health-poor states like Kentucky overwhelmingly advertise Coal, Guns & God during the political cycle?
1
While Krugman is correct that GOP energy policy is "fossilized," he uncharacteristically indulges in some liberal fantasy about solar power.
The sharp drop in the solar costs notwithstanding, solar remains the most expensive generating technology in every market and continues to rely on subsidies for viability. The growth in "renewables" is due mainly to wind – not solar, as Krugman implies. And new generating capacity in advanced countries is not “essentially all” solar. Here in the US, natural gas accounts for the dominant share of new capacity – despite subsidies for renewables. Other advanced countries have also added gas capacity.
Krugman is correct that solar power will eventually bring about an energy revolution, but not to the extent that he seems to think. It will take more than reduced renewable costs to make conventional power unnecessary. Absent a huge breakthrough in battery storage, we will continue to need conventional power from the grid during the times when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. (These times tend to coincide with peak power demand.) When solar power finally becomes competitive, solar will eclipse conventional power during daylight hours only. As solar costs continue to fall, solar will only cannibalize itself in the power market.
One of the things I most appreciate about Krugman is that he reliably destroys conservative arguments without resorting to liberal fantasies. Not this time.
The sharp drop in the solar costs notwithstanding, solar remains the most expensive generating technology in every market and continues to rely on subsidies for viability. The growth in "renewables" is due mainly to wind – not solar, as Krugman implies. And new generating capacity in advanced countries is not “essentially all” solar. Here in the US, natural gas accounts for the dominant share of new capacity – despite subsidies for renewables. Other advanced countries have also added gas capacity.
Krugman is correct that solar power will eventually bring about an energy revolution, but not to the extent that he seems to think. It will take more than reduced renewable costs to make conventional power unnecessary. Absent a huge breakthrough in battery storage, we will continue to need conventional power from the grid during the times when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. (These times tend to coincide with peak power demand.) When solar power finally becomes competitive, solar will eclipse conventional power during daylight hours only. As solar costs continue to fall, solar will only cannibalize itself in the power market.
One of the things I most appreciate about Krugman is that he reliably destroys conservative arguments without resorting to liberal fantasies. Not this time.
3
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/10/utility-scale-solar-costs-down-by...
Utility-scale solar costs down by half in last five years alone
"PV compares favorably to just the fuel costs of natural gas-fired generation."
Utility-scale solar costs down by half in last five years alone
"PV compares favorably to just the fuel costs of natural gas-fired generation."
1
What I don't get is why the Koch brothers don't just buy the renewable energy sector. Isn't it easier, cheaper, and even profitable to own the enemy rather than waging war?
132
Grumpy-Old-Man,
You can't put a meter on the sun. The Koch brothers want source control. Also, don't forget that their father was one of the founding members of the John Birch Society, which had some really bizarre conspiracy theories.
You can't put a meter on the sun. The Koch brothers want source control. Also, don't forget that their father was one of the founding members of the John Birch Society, which had some really bizarre conspiracy theories.
3
Grumpy
While I know what you mean when you say that the Koch brothers should buy the renewable energy sector, the reality is that for them, success of solar and other renewables will render worthless billions of dollars they have already invested in expensive petroleum infrastructure. Oil wells, pipelines, tankers, refineries, etc. Once money has been spend building these things, it is lost unless they continue to be used to extract, refine, and deliver petroleum. They cannot sell them for other purposes. So, they have made their investment, and the development of other competing sources harms the value of that investment.
While I know what you mean when you say that the Koch brothers should buy the renewable energy sector, the reality is that for them, success of solar and other renewables will render worthless billions of dollars they have already invested in expensive petroleum infrastructure. Oil wells, pipelines, tankers, refineries, etc. Once money has been spend building these things, it is lost unless they continue to be used to extract, refine, and deliver petroleum. They cannot sell them for other purposes. So, they have made their investment, and the development of other competing sources harms the value of that investment.
2
The kochs are not businessmen, they are inheritors.
If they were smart they would take the targets off the backs of their children and start once again contributing to our country.
If they were smart they would take the targets off the backs of their children and start once again contributing to our country.
How sanctimonious for Krugman to rail against Republicans for fighting efforts to limit "climate change"!
Climate change is only one of the effects of population growth, and controlling such growth would require efforts to encourage small family size and stop illegal immigration. Recall that Obama provided temporary amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants by executive fiat, ignoring the constitution which gives Congress the responsibility to pass laws regarding immigration.
Climate change is one of the impacts of too much population growth. Another is overcrowding in states like California. Residents of LA live under a constant blanket of smog caused by too many people. Another consequence of too many people is the "drought" that afflicts California. What do you expect when you turn the desert into endless housing tracts?
Economists and investment hucksters like to talk about the law of 72, whereby exponential growth of assets leads eventually to untold riches.
They get this wrong. It should be the law of 69.315 because the doubling time is logarithm of two divided by the growth rate. But this is only the start of their fallacies.
On a finite earth exponential growth CANNOT CONTINUE FOREVER. The exponential curve is replaced by a LOGISTIC CURVE which approaches a finite limit, the so-called carrying capacity.
The fallacy which underlies economics is the belief in everlasting growth. We need a new economics which admits the limits of resources.
Climate change is only one of the effects of population growth, and controlling such growth would require efforts to encourage small family size and stop illegal immigration. Recall that Obama provided temporary amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants by executive fiat, ignoring the constitution which gives Congress the responsibility to pass laws regarding immigration.
Climate change is one of the impacts of too much population growth. Another is overcrowding in states like California. Residents of LA live under a constant blanket of smog caused by too many people. Another consequence of too many people is the "drought" that afflicts California. What do you expect when you turn the desert into endless housing tracts?
Economists and investment hucksters like to talk about the law of 72, whereby exponential growth of assets leads eventually to untold riches.
They get this wrong. It should be the law of 69.315 because the doubling time is logarithm of two divided by the growth rate. But this is only the start of their fallacies.
On a finite earth exponential growth CANNOT CONTINUE FOREVER. The exponential curve is replaced by a LOGISTIC CURVE which approaches a finite limit, the so-called carrying capacity.
The fallacy which underlies economics is the belief in everlasting growth. We need a new economics which admits the limits of resources.
1
It's popular for pundits & profiteers to argue that renewable energy has always been more expensive than Fossil energy, is now more expensive, and will always be more expensive: The 1st and the last are mostly right and mostly wrong respectively, while the middle is completely flawed.
It's often called the 'Flaw of Averages': using the average costs of X and Y to claim 'X always costs less than Y', when the reality can be totally different.
Renewable energy technology has advanced and the costs have fallen to the point where:
(1) it's often cheaper than conventional fuels in many applications, yet has not penetrated deeply those markets where they are cheaper. This will drive continued development of renewable & further cost reductions, further expanding the cost-effective market.
(2) Renewables are often worth a premium cost because of other benefits (not only things like clean air, but things like avoiding the astronomical costs of new generating plants or power transmission lines).
(3) Renewable energy investment is a way to hedge one's bets and reduce risk in future energy supply. E.g., with wind & solar, initial costs are high, but operating & maintenance costs are predictably low, while initial costs of fossil fuels is low, but operating costs are unpredictable and potentially high.
It's often called the 'Flaw of Averages': using the average costs of X and Y to claim 'X always costs less than Y', when the reality can be totally different.
Renewable energy technology has advanced and the costs have fallen to the point where:
(1) it's often cheaper than conventional fuels in many applications, yet has not penetrated deeply those markets where they are cheaper. This will drive continued development of renewable & further cost reductions, further expanding the cost-effective market.
(2) Renewables are often worth a premium cost because of other benefits (not only things like clean air, but things like avoiding the astronomical costs of new generating plants or power transmission lines).
(3) Renewable energy investment is a way to hedge one's bets and reduce risk in future energy supply. E.g., with wind & solar, initial costs are high, but operating & maintenance costs are predictably low, while initial costs of fossil fuels is low, but operating costs are unpredictable and potentially high.
2
Fossil fuels are dirty, toxic, and - in the long run - far more expensive than sustainable energy.
We are stuck with them for now only because those invested in them also "invest" in politicians who will continue to subsidize this 20th Century industry, rather than the future.
We are stuck with them for now only because those invested in them also "invest" in politicians who will continue to subsidize this 20th Century industry, rather than the future.
3
"Koch- and ExxonMobil-backed think tank?"
Fossils contemplating fossil fuels methinks.
Fossils contemplating fossil fuels methinks.
4
The value of this editorial lies in the fact that it may and actually should stimulate those who are anchored in the past to haul in the chains and set sail to the future.
We can stay as we are and even regress for many more years but we do so at the risk of literally leaving our children with an ecological and economic mess that they will in all likelihood be unable to overcome.
It really is up to us to bring about the needed change and while there are a few candidates who are speaking as though their feet we're on spaceship earth it is up to us the voter to get them in office.
Register and vote, our children's lives literally depend on it.
We can stay as we are and even regress for many more years but we do so at the risk of literally leaving our children with an ecological and economic mess that they will in all likelihood be unable to overcome.
It really is up to us to bring about the needed change and while there are a few candidates who are speaking as though their feet we're on spaceship earth it is up to us the voter to get them in office.
Register and vote, our children's lives literally depend on it.
15
You can't vote your way to new means of storing power. They must actually be invented.
"While politicians on the right may talk about encouraging innovation and promoting an energy revolution, ". And I might add jobs. Here in Utah the Republican Legislature passed a bill preventing Tesla from selling its cars directly to the public. You cannot buy a new Tesla in Utah.
8
Every state has a long-established franchise law which protects car dealerships by prohibiting direct-to-customer factory sales. It's very rare that an ordinary consumer can buy any vehicle directly from the manufacturer. The car dealer associations, especially NADA, exert very powerful influences on legislators.
Every state has a long-established franchise law which protects car dealerships by prohibiting direct-to-customer factory sales. It's very rare that an ordinary consumer can buy any vehicle directly from the manufacturer. The car dealer trade associations, especially NADA, exert very powerful influences on legislators. Whenever you buy a car from a dealer, some of that money goes to support the dealer trade associations which write the laws, and bribe politicians, preventing you from buying direct from the factory.
The only people buying Tesla's are the rich. So the middle class is subsidizing automobiles for the wealthy to drive. Sheer idiocy.
This just in (literally?): According to Bloomberg, Germany had pledged an investment of over 1 billion euros ($1.1 billion) in Indian solar power projects as Asia’s third-largest economy looks to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-05/merkel-pledges-1-billi...
In no way can we launch such a program in America. I mean, what would that say about our vaunted American exceptionalism?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-05/merkel-pledges-1-billi...
In no way can we launch such a program in America. I mean, what would that say about our vaunted American exceptionalism?
6
JEB has summed up his campaign as "Stuff happens", Rubio's is to avoid work.
8
Paul Krugman is a highly published Professor of Economics who worked indirectly in the Reagan Administration.
One of the things that should be apparent but isn't is that Economists NEVER learn from their mistakes and Krugman is not about to break the mold.
His beliefs in economics theories and his responses via his statements demonstrate a wondrous disconnect from reality. He has claimed that America's economics policies are Keynesian when nothing could be further from the truth. The printing of currency above and beyond the growth of GNP is but one example. It doesn't take an economist to see what has happened to the cost of living under Obama following policies Krugman could have written himself.
Without actual cost analysis he actually believes that renewable energy resources are economically viable. The truth is that fossil fuel resources are only marginally profitable. The government cannot make renewable energy profitable. The private companies that are attempting to do so know this. While many tout this as the wave of the future this is ONLY because of government subsidies which the government cannot afford.
Listening to Krugman is like listening to a broken record endlessly repeating the same phrases again and again.
One of the things that should be apparent but isn't is that Economists NEVER learn from their mistakes and Krugman is not about to break the mold.
His beliefs in economics theories and his responses via his statements demonstrate a wondrous disconnect from reality. He has claimed that America's economics policies are Keynesian when nothing could be further from the truth. The printing of currency above and beyond the growth of GNP is but one example. It doesn't take an economist to see what has happened to the cost of living under Obama following policies Krugman could have written himself.
Without actual cost analysis he actually believes that renewable energy resources are economically viable. The truth is that fossil fuel resources are only marginally profitable. The government cannot make renewable energy profitable. The private companies that are attempting to do so know this. While many tout this as the wave of the future this is ONLY because of government subsidies which the government cannot afford.
Listening to Krugman is like listening to a broken record endlessly repeating the same phrases again and again.
1
You must not read Krugman. While he argues that America's economic policies "should" adopt Keynesian principles (i.e., spend more during recession), he frequently complains that it has not done so.
Re: the cost of living under Obama - inflation index is pretty low. Gas is cheaper than under Bush.
You comment that renewable energy cannot be made profitable without government subsidies. I'll bet if you'd lived in the age of Columbus, you would have been concerned about him sailing off the edge of the world.
Re: the cost of living under Obama - inflation index is pretty low. Gas is cheaper than under Bush.
You comment that renewable energy cannot be made profitable without government subsidies. I'll bet if you'd lived in the age of Columbus, you would have been concerned about him sailing off the edge of the world.
If this is your belief, by all means stop reading Krugman. Why read something you decided ahead of time to disagree with? This is merely a rant against Obama and Krugman's support of him, and some vague disagreement with the well-based premise of the article. Alternative energy resource gets much less government subsidy than oil companies do; your fact are in error.
Prof. Krugman--and the Times-- should examine how a corrupt utilities commission, in the pocket of the companies running the electric grid in the Phoenix, AZ, metropolitan area (where the sun shines intensely 370 days/year [almost!]),managed to impose a crippling "service fee" on homeowners who converted to solar.
9
Every homeowner and business owner who has sun shining on their roof and can afford it, should install a solar array. What are you waiting for? Show your neighbors that it's affordable and set an example for your community.
People ask me how long my solar panels will work - I explain that there are no moving parts, and that I expect them to last 25-30 years or longer. They also want to know how long it takes for a return on my investment. In my opinion, my solar panels are the most important investment I can make for my kids (but in terms of dollars, the ROI is about 7-8 years).
Defeat big oil......invest in solar!
People ask me how long my solar panels will work - I explain that there are no moving parts, and that I expect them to last 25-30 years or longer. They also want to know how long it takes for a return on my investment. In my opinion, my solar panels are the most important investment I can make for my kids (but in terms of dollars, the ROI is about 7-8 years).
Defeat big oil......invest in solar!
9
No doubt that all forms of renewable energy will become more efficient and less costly as designs progress but there's another problem that never seems to be mentioned... AVAILABILITY.
I can't provide detailed numbers but when the current rate of energy use coming from fossil fuels is compared with that which could be reasonably expected to gained from all forms of renewable energy there is a huge gap. The ONLY source which has a chance is some form of nuclear (either fission or maybe someday, fusion) and they are politically "off the table".
This has nothing to do with the opposition from the "evil" lords of the oil, gas and coal barons. But it does get in the way when writing an Op-Ed piece.
I can't provide detailed numbers but when the current rate of energy use coming from fossil fuels is compared with that which could be reasonably expected to gained from all forms of renewable energy there is a huge gap. The ONLY source which has a chance is some form of nuclear (either fission or maybe someday, fusion) and they are politically "off the table".
This has nothing to do with the opposition from the "evil" lords of the oil, gas and coal barons. But it does get in the way when writing an Op-Ed piece.
1
To use an oft quoted expression, let's take a "common sense" approach to today's renewables. They don't work well enough to sustain our economy, yet. They are too expensive for the poor to embrace to heat, cool and light their homes, yet. Will they work in the future, hopefully. Do we need more research to achieve that goal, yes. Do we still need dirty fuel to maintain our culture, our industry and feed and house the poor etc, yes.
So let's continue to beat on the Republicans for being against destroying the present energy systems we use today before we have a viable alternative. Common sense, right!
So let's continue to beat on the Republicans for being against destroying the present energy systems we use today before we have a viable alternative. Common sense, right!
Richard Nixon *was* a crook.
Yet Nixon's record of achievement on the environment rivals that of any other U.S. president in history, including Teddy Roosevelt and Jimmy Carter.
Thanks to the G.O.P., the 21st century will belong to China.
But thanks to the G.O.P., the 22nd century will belong to no one.
Yet Nixon's record of achievement on the environment rivals that of any other U.S. president in history, including Teddy Roosevelt and Jimmy Carter.
Thanks to the G.O.P., the 21st century will belong to China.
But thanks to the G.O.P., the 22nd century will belong to no one.
3
On every issue there is always a rebuttal that says what about an offense on your side? The logical extension of that position is let's do nothing about either problem. How about let's do something about both problems. Let's address unsightly and bird slaughtering windmills AND the coal mining which pollutes air and water AND fracking which denudes the countryside. Let's do something about gun control AND mental health treatment.
5
Okay, but first we have to agree about what to address. For example, IMHO windmills are great and beautiful and when sited well, don't do as much bird damage as some say, and I am a birder. Certainly not as much as cats.
I happen to think striping lovely mountains with chair lifts and condos for skiers is ugly, but it isn't done to all mountains, and it supports a lot of local economies around the country, including Vermont. Water usage for snowmaking is another thing, however.
So we need to weigh things and try to do our best, not just win. Thinking and acknowledging other ways of seeing issues are helpful.
I happen to think striping lovely mountains with chair lifts and condos for skiers is ugly, but it isn't done to all mountains, and it supports a lot of local economies around the country, including Vermont. Water usage for snowmaking is another thing, however.
So we need to weigh things and try to do our best, not just win. Thinking and acknowledging other ways of seeing issues are helpful.
Here on the western edge of New Jersey - Hunterdon County - on the Delaware River, we have been fighting the PennEast consortium of six gas entities including the gas giant UGI, who have proposed to build a 108-mile pipeline from the Marcellus Shale across the Delaware River to a connector outside of Trenton. Residents and taxpayers have paid millions of dollars to preserve the precious little open space we have in the state, much of it in Hunterdon County. An expert geoscientist at Princeton, Dr. TC Onstott is among many experts who have testified under oath that among the by-products of the pipeline, the aquifer along the route where nearly all residents rely on well-water - runs a heavy risk of becoming contaminated with arsenic, trapped in the rock layer below. Further, a number of experts can't verify that the state needs the gas. Opposiiton is 100 percent against the pipeline in our communities and we have forbidden PennEast (the name itself is an insult to those of us who love our state) to survey on preserved, township or private land. Their answer was a month-long barrage of survey planes and drones over our community giving us a feeling of what it must be like to live in a war zone. In spite of the opposition, PennEast filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) last month and the fight continues. In the meantime, a number of us are following in the footsteps of our neighbors, taking advantage of tax breaks to install solar panels on our homes.
6
I live in Florida. I think it's fair to say that even though solar is under-utilized here, the state does give rebates for panels. The state also has a good net-metering program that pays retail rates for electricity put back into the grid.
Looking at Senator Rubio's campaign web site, the energy policy information stresses fossil fuels (including coal) and their de-regulation. No mention of solar.
And here we are in the sun belt.
Looking at Senator Rubio's campaign web site, the energy policy information stresses fossil fuels (including coal) and their de-regulation. No mention of solar.
And here we are in the sun belt.
7
I fully support the concept of "new energy." Always. But...with the Saudis having all the power to undercut such new energy pricing, simply by lowering the price of oil -- well, I just don't see how we can move forward very much in this area.
It's been a long time since I was an international petroleum economist, and studying such things. But the economics of alternative energy sources are generally pegged to what the price of its nearest substitute is -- conventional oil & gas.
And look what's happened to shale oil and fracking. They (Saudis) could do the same to just about any other energy source too.
Someone offer me a good explanation for why this isn't true. Please.
It's been a long time since I was an international petroleum economist, and studying such things. But the economics of alternative energy sources are generally pegged to what the price of its nearest substitute is -- conventional oil & gas.
And look what's happened to shale oil and fracking. They (Saudis) could do the same to just about any other energy source too.
Someone offer me a good explanation for why this isn't true. Please.
As oil and gas become less available, the difference between renewable and non-renewable will become much more obvious. How many years in the future that is is debateable, but at some point solar and wind will be the basis for our energy consumption. It's just a matter of time.
4
That future time is indeed debatable. It involves the concept of "Peak Oil" -- when the world's oil (and gas) production will begin to decline, at a substantial rate.
A very controversial topic. Some think it will be a long, long time before that happens.
But...the alternate energy sources being addressed here, in this article, seem to be "today." And, the near future.
If I was an investor in those, I'd certainly take a long, hard look at the possibility of oil prices undercutting the economics of those sources. Hope I'm wrong.
A very controversial topic. Some think it will be a long, long time before that happens.
But...the alternate energy sources being addressed here, in this article, seem to be "today." And, the near future.
If I was an investor in those, I'd certainly take a long, hard look at the possibility of oil prices undercutting the economics of those sources. Hope I'm wrong.
Politics makes no difference in the end. It's just a straight mathematical calculation that renewables may make us feel good, but they are useless as a substitute for cheap energy. WE need, to keep or economies going an ERoEI of 35:1 minimum. Even conventional oil cannot do that any longer, let alone solar,even Hydro at 10:1
A good way to see the problem is to use the Cubic Mile of Oil concept. We use over 1 CMO just in petroleum every year [plus another two in gas and coal and renewables]
To generate electricity to match 1 CMO we would need 200 Hydro dams each the size of China's 3 Gorges dam. There aren't even enough sites for 200 such dams, not to mention the resources and time required to achieve this result.
Or we could build 2600 Nuclear power stations. 5200 coal/gas fired plants, or 4.5 Billion Solar Panels.
We have to face the unavoidable reality that we are going down to ruin. Renewables are a fantasy.
A good way to see the problem is to use the Cubic Mile of Oil concept. We use over 1 CMO just in petroleum every year [plus another two in gas and coal and renewables]
To generate electricity to match 1 CMO we would need 200 Hydro dams each the size of China's 3 Gorges dam. There aren't even enough sites for 200 such dams, not to mention the resources and time required to achieve this result.
Or we could build 2600 Nuclear power stations. 5200 coal/gas fired plants, or 4.5 Billion Solar Panels.
We have to face the unavoidable reality that we are going down to ruin. Renewables are a fantasy.
I'm fine with the nuclear power plants. Problem: who can finance them?
I suppose the same thinking applied to airplanes when they were first invented: "they will never make any progress in transporting people." "They will never be able to transport anything on a scale where it would make a difference." This kind of thinking hobbles us most of all.
52
I haven't heard anyone on the right say anything intelligent about an energy plan, and some on the right are still talking about coal. These people are not in the 21st or even the 20th Century. It's more like the 19th Century or earlier. In their mind, the earth might as well be flat and the sun revolving around it. To them it's not about where we were or where we are going, it is about how much money they have in their pockets today.
4
On a train ride from Passau on the eastern edge of Germany to Munich recently, we saw many--and I mean many--solar panels on farm houses and barns, set up in large arrays in fields, and in smaller arrays along the right of way of the trains themselves.
The rest of the world gets this issue, but once again American exceptionalism keeps us in the 19th century. Why? Because the moneyed interests from years past still control our Congress. It's a wonder anything new ever gets adopted here--oh, except for things like chili-cheese-anything and ever bigger portions. Keep us fat and stupid and we're quite happy to be exceptional.
The rest of the world gets this issue, but once again American exceptionalism keeps us in the 19th century. Why? Because the moneyed interests from years past still control our Congress. It's a wonder anything new ever gets adopted here--oh, except for things like chili-cheese-anything and ever bigger portions. Keep us fat and stupid and we're quite happy to be exceptional.
9
The future of energy is an interesting subject for consideration. Renewables offer solutions for fixed systems, basically standalone buildings and power grids, but not transportation, yet. The limitation is that anything moving must carry it's own power delivery system with itself. Coal, oil and gas are still the most efficient fuels for transportation, because they can deliver power any where and at any time sufficiently to move anything from an automobile to a power plant or big container ship, night or day, rain or shine. For now a mix of power sources must be used. We must achieve a more sustainable system of providing and using energy to address the needs for protecting our environment and using energy far more efficiently. There has been a fear amongst the big fossil fuel companies that society would cut the core out of their profit making potential by addressing policies that focus upon limiting the use of their products for decades and it has lead to stupidly obstructive reactions by their most stolid supporters in government, the Republican Party. It has also left the progress of energy and transportation to polarized factions with agendas that do not address the needs of society in a coherent and cooperative manner but instead acting without any real consideration of everyone's needs creating policies and practices which are not the best that might be done. Fracking has contaminated water tables and bicycle lanes make gridlock and endanger lives.
2
There is nothing "conservative" about the Republican Party. They are ready to promote disintegration and destruction of all kinds rather than alter their understanding of anything.
What word should be titled to them I don't know, but the press should stop calling them "conservative".
What word should be titled to them I don't know, but the press should stop calling them "conservative".
7
I believe the word you're looking for, Frank, is "reactionary."
Follow the money. It is simple: the oil and coal folks feel threatened and they want to kill off the competitors. Remember that the biggest profit goes to monopolies.
6
In reality solar and wind only make up less than 2% of the worlds energy needs
Hydro-electricity makes up the vast majority of the renewable sources and hydro-electricity has reached it's limit unless your going to flood out towns and villages like China did.
So until you can come up with something to replace oil and gas, we will be using it for the next 100 years.
Hydro-electricity makes up the vast majority of the renewable sources and hydro-electricity has reached it's limit unless your going to flood out towns and villages like China did.
So until you can come up with something to replace oil and gas, we will be using it for the next 100 years.
You will not have 100 years. The human race will be extinct.
Prof. Krugman, I would like to paraphrase your second paragraph's last sentence to read: When it comes to policy in general, the G.O.P. has become fossilized, and the only energy it produces is taking this country back to the era of pre-Enlightenment.
9
We tell ourselves we live in a free democracy, but actually we live in a corporate oligarchy that skillfully blinds us to this truth via carefully choreographed mass media (propaganda). Sadly, even awakening to this reality on a massive level will do nothing to change it.
16
It is understandable why "Old Energy" folks act the way they do. Much investment, jobs, and personal wealth are involved. We need to be at least empathetic with their circumstances. The transition to the new energies will be rocky, for sure, but it is inevitable that renewables will win out.
Like big energy being so empathetic to all the jobs that have been shipped out of the country? They have plenty of money to get on this train before it leaves the station. Get on or be left behind.
Let's put a field of 400 foot high windmills in Princeton's back yard so that Dr. Krugman can "enjoy" its scenic destruction, dance to its never ending hum, and use the mangled birds accumulating at the base of each for garden fertilizer. And that's when the wind decides to blow; otherwise just the scene destroyer aspect.
Sure solar has a future - but its not there yet - not at $20K to $30K per home - and don't forget that the cells deteriorate and lose efficiency over time - so expect to have to replace such cells every ten years at best; and you'll still need the local utility for something that happens all the time: nights and rainy days.
Sure, coal only survives through political expediency; but so does ethanol - a Democrat favorite which destroys gasoline engine fuel systems, murders achievable mileage, and requires massively polluting and environmentally harming infrastructure. But you'll never hear Obama seek to limit ethanol usage and its benefit to his home corn-growing state of Illinois. Nah - it's only the Republicans.
Sure solar has a future - but its not there yet - not at $20K to $30K per home - and don't forget that the cells deteriorate and lose efficiency over time - so expect to have to replace such cells every ten years at best; and you'll still need the local utility for something that happens all the time: nights and rainy days.
Sure, coal only survives through political expediency; but so does ethanol - a Democrat favorite which destroys gasoline engine fuel systems, murders achievable mileage, and requires massively polluting and environmentally harming infrastructure. But you'll never hear Obama seek to limit ethanol usage and its benefit to his home corn-growing state of Illinois. Nah - it's only the Republicans.
3
I think windmills are very attractive, compared to smoke-belching smoke stacks of coal fired power plants.
Over the longer term, civilization seems to find a way to move forward, even if it always means dragging complacent, reluctant, screaming conservatives along with it.
The issue is how much energy it takes to drag the extra weight of the memories of things past.
The issue is how much energy it takes to drag the extra weight of the memories of things past.
2
Another reason why the Republicans will lose, eventually, and likely disappear as a national political party. They are fast becoming irrelevant as far as science and technology are concerned. Intellectually, they are already an embarrassment to themselves and to the world. Yes, they may try to stop progress but will fail. When a party has nothing to offer but anger and hostility, sooner or later it exhausts itself. The GOP is following a well-trod path to oblivion.
7
The backlash against clean, renewable energy became evident when newly elected Ronald Reagan took the solar panels off of the White House. He didn't kill a plan to install but actually removed working panels. This was a symbolic repudiation of Jimmy Carter's advice to "Put on a sweater." rather than turn up the heat.
With an improving economy, thanks to Paul Volker's draconian interest rates that killed soaring inflation, it wasn't long before the Peterbilt truck company introduced a nine and a half foot tall SUV that guzzled gas like a Hummer's big brother.
It was an age of conspicuous consumption and people liked that. Like the Roaring Twenties, worries about the future weren't considered fashionable. Like the Roaring Twenties, there is a price to pay.
This time, the price is much higher than a massive stock market bubble. We can't magically unpolute the planet or lower the temperature or the seas. Hundred year events will continue to haunt us every year or two. But we can get started trying and that alone will put people back to work in good, non exportable jobs.
We just need to remember that every polluting energy backed argument is an argument of survival for their companies; just as the lies, flashy commercials and misleading arguments of the tobacco companies were before them.
There is little they won't do or pay for to maintain the status quo and they have very big war chests.
With an improving economy, thanks to Paul Volker's draconian interest rates that killed soaring inflation, it wasn't long before the Peterbilt truck company introduced a nine and a half foot tall SUV that guzzled gas like a Hummer's big brother.
It was an age of conspicuous consumption and people liked that. Like the Roaring Twenties, worries about the future weren't considered fashionable. Like the Roaring Twenties, there is a price to pay.
This time, the price is much higher than a massive stock market bubble. We can't magically unpolute the planet or lower the temperature or the seas. Hundred year events will continue to haunt us every year or two. But we can get started trying and that alone will put people back to work in good, non exportable jobs.
We just need to remember that every polluting energy backed argument is an argument of survival for their companies; just as the lies, flashy commercials and misleading arguments of the tobacco companies were before them.
There is little they won't do or pay for to maintain the status quo and they have very big war chests.
7
The federal government needs to allow the people to vote on national issues like states do for specific referendums. If people were voting for or against issues instead of for or against people who probably don't represent them very well, they might get actual representation and feel that voting is worthwhile. Polls are not good enough. Actual votes that change things could be the solution to making each party work to get their voices heard. The issue of energy consumption and source is one such issue.
4
There's really no reason why we can't all devote and hour or two on Friday nights voting on the issues of our time over the Internet. Odds are that, like energy transformation, the transformation of democratic participation will also be changing.
This is a scary proposition for the exceptionalists, and control freaks who ride the familiar roads of "myway" while relegating everyone else to the potholes of crowded, worn, and battered highways.
As glorious as self fulfillment it, it is ultimately inclusivity, not exclusivity that drives civilization forward. It seem to me that history has taught that lesson well.
This is a scary proposition for the exceptionalists, and control freaks who ride the familiar roads of "myway" while relegating everyone else to the potholes of crowded, worn, and battered highways.
As glorious as self fulfillment it, it is ultimately inclusivity, not exclusivity that drives civilization forward. It seem to me that history has taught that lesson well.
I have a proposal to solve all of this ! Enact a Cyber Citizens Congress CCC , where registrants can vote on every line item appropriation that the elected Congress votes on in a bundled way. An opinion poll on hot issues could be included also. How long could the elected Congress ignore the huge gap which develops under such a system ? The elected rep's would shortly begin to appear as the puppets of industry that they are.
If we ever solve the security issues and allow people to vote with their smart phones, the percentage of the population that votes could skyrocket.
What I cannot understand is why oil companies, having styled themselves as energy companies, have refused to diversify and embrace the newer technologies and make them their own. Oil companies have turned up perhaps the biggest opportunity since the light bulb to the future of energy production. In time they will become fossils worthy of placement in a museum down the hall from the dinosaurs.
10
The keyword is "companies". The flaw in capitalism is in its utter lack of concern for humanity or, for that matter, a lack of concern for nature as a whole.
Up until now, this, exploitation, of nature, including humans has been a critical driver of the success of capitalism (the reality is that the worst, and most expensive tax on humans to date, has been the tax that capitalism has imposed upon our environment, and the planet itself).
Now, we find ourselves, needing a balance between nature and civilization. We simply can't have one without the other (at least until we find a way to discover and exploit other 'pocket oases' outside of our home planet).
This does not necessarily require a reduction in our productivity or progress, just a change in our approach.
It is foolhardy to believe that the way forward is to concentrate the 'wealth of civilization' to fuel the feckless whims of the few, and to rely on 'trickle down' to save the planet and human civilization. We've been there, done that multiple times in our history, and it just doesn't work............not to mention what it has now done to the planet and the rest of the species on it!
Up until now, this, exploitation, of nature, including humans has been a critical driver of the success of capitalism (the reality is that the worst, and most expensive tax on humans to date, has been the tax that capitalism has imposed upon our environment, and the planet itself).
Now, we find ourselves, needing a balance between nature and civilization. We simply can't have one without the other (at least until we find a way to discover and exploit other 'pocket oases' outside of our home planet).
This does not necessarily require a reduction in our productivity or progress, just a change in our approach.
It is foolhardy to believe that the way forward is to concentrate the 'wealth of civilization' to fuel the feckless whims of the few, and to rely on 'trickle down' to save the planet and human civilization. We've been there, done that multiple times in our history, and it just doesn't work............not to mention what it has now done to the planet and the rest of the species on it!
They just want to let others do the heavy lifting to get renewables going. Wait another ten years or so and see who buys up all the fledgling renewable companies.
Yes, you would think that oil companies would diversify their investments to include renewable and alternative systems, instead of stonewalling the natural path of progress the majority "see" for the nation.
Krugman's thesis, that climate denial breeds right wing opposition to alternative energy, is only partly true. There are counter-trends, not always visible from Washington or New York City. The economics of electricity at the individual farm and business level tell a more nuanced story. Consider tiny Washington County in east-central Iowa, a deeply red county which went for Romney as the state as a whole voted Obama. It has the highest rate per capita by far of any county in the state, and one of the highest in the whole U.S., of solar installations. You will find plenty of climate denial there, along with an equal number of farmers looking to tax- and utility rebate-supported ways to lower their electricity costs.
3
Climate change simply represents a change that introduces uncertainty, including the 'absolutes' that fortify the bulwarks of ideological delusion that have been carefully aligned to ward off adaptation (aka a need to change).
The lack of personal control and certainty in times like these drives ideological delusionists to double down on their delusion. That makes 'times like these' dangerous times for humanity as a whole, because the basic physics of our universe is rooted in in the principle of continuous change (albeit. that change is usually more readily visible in cosmic time, than it is in human time).
The lack of personal control and certainty in times like these drives ideological delusionists to double down on their delusion. That makes 'times like these' dangerous times for humanity as a whole, because the basic physics of our universe is rooted in in the principle of continuous change (albeit. that change is usually more readily visible in cosmic time, than it is in human time).
"climate denial has become part of the conservative identity" says Mr Krugman, to which I would add, "and science denial has become a part of the democratic identity". For science has spoken. Climate change we observed during the XXth century and the beginning of the XXIst century has been caused primarily by natural forces.
Solar and wind have a small role to play for a foreseeable future. This role should not be discouraged, but neither should it be forced on the economy through central planning, as such economic forcing will lead to further impoverishment of the masses, which will lead to unpredictable political reactions. Once we abandon climate alarmism, we can focus on ensuring energy abundance through efficient markets, however this abundance is produced.
Last but not least, we can also begin a painful process of healing in science before it's reputation is shredded beyond repair. Which would perhaps be the greatest tragedy of all.
Solar and wind have a small role to play for a foreseeable future. This role should not be discouraged, but neither should it be forced on the economy through central planning, as such economic forcing will lead to further impoverishment of the masses, which will lead to unpredictable political reactions. Once we abandon climate alarmism, we can focus on ensuring energy abundance through efficient markets, however this abundance is produced.
Last but not least, we can also begin a painful process of healing in science before it's reputation is shredded beyond repair. Which would perhaps be the greatest tragedy of all.
1
"For science has spoken. Climate change we observed during the XXth century and the beginning of the XXIst century has been caused primarily by natural forces."
What is your scientific citation for this conclusion?
"Solar and wind have a small role to play for a foreseeable future."
If its role is so small, then why do Koch-supported groups wan to ban or tax the ability of home owners to use solar power, claiming it is raising electricity prices for others?
What is your scientific citation for this conclusion?
"Solar and wind have a small role to play for a foreseeable future."
If its role is so small, then why do Koch-supported groups wan to ban or tax the ability of home owners to use solar power, claiming it is raising electricity prices for others?
20
This a joke, right? Democrats are science-deniers? But 25% of your side says the earth is 6000 years old.
9
As geochemist James Lawrence Powell continues to prove, the only people still debating whether or not climate change is “real,” and caused by human activity, are the ones who aren’t doing the actual research. In an update to his ongoing project of reviewing the literature on global warming, Powell went through every scientific study published in a peer-review journal during the calendar year 2013, finding 10,885 in total.... Of those, a mere two rejected anthropogenic global warming....
Very few of the most vocal global warming deniers, those who write op-eds and blogs and testify to congressional committees, have ever written a peer-reviewed article in which they say explicitly that anthropogenic global warming is false. Why? Because then they would have to provide the evidence and, evidently, they don’t have it.
What can we conclude?
1. There a mountain of scientific evidence in favor of anthropogenic global warming and no convincing evidence against it.
2. Those who deny anthropogenic global warming have no alternative theory to explain the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 and global temperature.
These two facts together mean that the so-called debate over global warming is an illusion, a hoax conjured up by a handful of apostate scientists and a misguided and sometimes colluding media, aided and abetted by funding from fossil fuel companies and right wing foundations.
— Salon.com, 3/25/14
http://tinyurl.com/k4kd52s
Very few of the most vocal global warming deniers, those who write op-eds and blogs and testify to congressional committees, have ever written a peer-reviewed article in which they say explicitly that anthropogenic global warming is false. Why? Because then they would have to provide the evidence and, evidently, they don’t have it.
What can we conclude?
1. There a mountain of scientific evidence in favor of anthropogenic global warming and no convincing evidence against it.
2. Those who deny anthropogenic global warming have no alternative theory to explain the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 and global temperature.
These two facts together mean that the so-called debate over global warming is an illusion, a hoax conjured up by a handful of apostate scientists and a misguided and sometimes colluding media, aided and abetted by funding from fossil fuel companies and right wing foundations.
— Salon.com, 3/25/14
http://tinyurl.com/k4kd52s
151
Old Energy is perfect. It's the perfect moniker for short-sighted energy policy embraced by a short-sighted political party. The GOP is utterly incapable of thinking beyond next quarter's earnings report, and the next election cycle. Thinking about what is best for the American people- and the planet as a whole- in the long term escapes them completely.
King Coal is dead. Oil is too polluting and risks too much environmental catastrophe both in its extraction and burning. Fracking has poisoned water tables and aquifers across the country. I'm a Colorado native, and it's depressing and heartbreaking to visit and see the landscape of my home state spoiled with countless, ugly fracking wells.
Solar, wind, geothermal, and new technologies are the future. Innovation will heal both our planet and our economy. But we won't get there as long as the dead-weight, know-nothing GOP is in charge of Congress. Don't forget to vote.
King Coal is dead. Oil is too polluting and risks too much environmental catastrophe both in its extraction and burning. Fracking has poisoned water tables and aquifers across the country. I'm a Colorado native, and it's depressing and heartbreaking to visit and see the landscape of my home state spoiled with countless, ugly fracking wells.
Solar, wind, geothermal, and new technologies are the future. Innovation will heal both our planet and our economy. But we won't get there as long as the dead-weight, know-nothing GOP is in charge of Congress. Don't forget to vote.
6
On 015/07/29 Thinkprogressive spotted this headline:
"Germany Just Got 78 Percent Of Its Electricity From Renewable Sources"
"On Saturday, July 25, Germany set a new national record for renewable energy by meeting 78 percent of the day’s electricity demand with renewables sources, exceeding the previous record of 74 percent set in May of 2014."
It can be done, but no, it is not as cheap as fracking.
--------------------------
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/29/3685555/germany-sets-new-ren...
"Germany Just Got 78 Percent Of Its Electricity From Renewable Sources"
"On Saturday, July 25, Germany set a new national record for renewable energy by meeting 78 percent of the day’s electricity demand with renewables sources, exceeding the previous record of 74 percent set in May of 2014."
It can be done, but no, it is not as cheap as fracking.
--------------------------
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/29/3685555/germany-sets-new-ren...
8
"It can be done, but no, it is not as cheap as fracking"
And what is the environmental cost of the unknown disclosed chemicals in the solutions used for fracking? Why should be treat the planet we live on with less care than we treat our own bodies. FDA requires the components of all drugs to be tested for toxicity, so why not the chemicals used in fracking?
And what is the environmental cost of the unknown disclosed chemicals in the solutions used for fracking? Why should be treat the planet we live on with less care than we treat our own bodies. FDA requires the components of all drugs to be tested for toxicity, so why not the chemicals used in fracking?
Here in California, for-profit electric utilities are scared to death of solar even as they are forced to embrace it due to state law. What they are really afraid of is home roof top solar, because it releases people from the grid.
Corporate executives of our big power companies (SCE, PG&E) get the typical huge compensation packages of US corporations (while they import cheap H1-B visa holders to replace American workers, as seen at SCE). Those huge salaries are threatened by the freedom to go off grid, soon possible due to battery systems that allow for daytime generation to be stored and used at night.
In addition, electric cars, charged at home from the rooftop, send zero money to Exxon, Aramco, BP, Shell, etc. Solar is anti-corporate.
Since we've gone with rooftop solar and electric cars, we've ceased supporting Big Oil to the tune of several thousand dollars per year. What happens when tens of millions of people do that?
You would think freedom loving Republicans would be all for individuals living free of the grips of corporations with monopoly power, but you would be wrong.
Corporate executives of our big power companies (SCE, PG&E) get the typical huge compensation packages of US corporations (while they import cheap H1-B visa holders to replace American workers, as seen at SCE). Those huge salaries are threatened by the freedom to go off grid, soon possible due to battery systems that allow for daytime generation to be stored and used at night.
In addition, electric cars, charged at home from the rooftop, send zero money to Exxon, Aramco, BP, Shell, etc. Solar is anti-corporate.
Since we've gone with rooftop solar and electric cars, we've ceased supporting Big Oil to the tune of several thousand dollars per year. What happens when tens of millions of people do that?
You would think freedom loving Republicans would be all for individuals living free of the grips of corporations with monopoly power, but you would be wrong.
12
The explanation can be found from an old encyclopedia article, written back when the Middle East oil was just coming on line, much of it not yet discovered. Many places such as Libya did not yet even know they had oil, much less how much it had or if it could get it out economically.
It expressed fears for the future of the oil industry, but fears entirely alien to us today. The fear was of oversupply, of oil cheaper than water. Oil bubbled up there without even being pumped. It was near free, and of the very best quality.
The fear was that the US oil industry would go broke from oversupply in the form of competition that could make more money than ever dreamed even by Standard Oil at prices far below US cost of production.
That threatened US trade balance. It also threatened world power of the US. The US had controlled oil supply before and during WW2, to great effect, owning with Britain over 85% of world production, much of the rest in Russia.
Yet today US oil companies are still making money with fantastically expensive drilling like offshore in the arctic and deep sea drilling. How?
The US dominates world oil supply by owning key elements. It is a secondary effect, via technology control of exploration, drilling, and refining, but US companies control that industry power and profits.
World "shortage" is just a bonus to those who have that money and worldwide power. Of course they don't want to give it up. It just looks different now. It is the same worldwide power.
It expressed fears for the future of the oil industry, but fears entirely alien to us today. The fear was of oversupply, of oil cheaper than water. Oil bubbled up there without even being pumped. It was near free, and of the very best quality.
The fear was that the US oil industry would go broke from oversupply in the form of competition that could make more money than ever dreamed even by Standard Oil at prices far below US cost of production.
That threatened US trade balance. It also threatened world power of the US. The US had controlled oil supply before and during WW2, to great effect, owning with Britain over 85% of world production, much of the rest in Russia.
Yet today US oil companies are still making money with fantastically expensive drilling like offshore in the arctic and deep sea drilling. How?
The US dominates world oil supply by owning key elements. It is a secondary effect, via technology control of exploration, drilling, and refining, but US companies control that industry power and profits.
World "shortage" is just a bonus to those who have that money and worldwide power. Of course they don't want to give it up. It just looks different now. It is the same worldwide power.
Gas, oil, coal have received trillions in subsidies, tax credits, cheap leases of public land for decades - a century! Why not support the clean alternatives?
Just, please, don't ask us to subsidize unnecessarily giant-sized mega wind turbines in areas with so little wind that no energy will be created, where no infrastructure exists to transfer the energy if it were created. We don't need more dumb energy policy formulated to create another bunch of newly minted billionaires at the expense of little folk in whose back yard the behemoths are being built.
Just, please, don't ask us to subsidize unnecessarily giant-sized mega wind turbines in areas with so little wind that no energy will be created, where no infrastructure exists to transfer the energy if it were created. We don't need more dumb energy policy formulated to create another bunch of newly minted billionaires at the expense of little folk in whose back yard the behemoths are being built.
2
The elephant in the room is nuclear power, which can produce far more energy, 24/7 in a small footprint, than wind or solar. Research should continue on making it safer and more affordable.
12
Until they can safely dispose the waste, we should approach it very carefully.
The question that must be asked is "compared to what?". Nuclear waste is largely solid, is very compact, and is easily stored on-site, likely underground. Compare this with the 20,000 tons per day of CO2 belched out by a single coal plant. In fact, coal plants dump more radioactive junk into the air than nuclear ever could.
1
Bob, I'm not anti nuclear and agree with what you say. But the waste stays radioactive a very long time and more and more will accumulate as time goes by. There is also the problem of where to store it. Not too many places want it. Transporting it is another problem.
Why can't we find ways to neutralize the waste? We've done seemingly impossible things before.
Why can't we find ways to neutralize the waste? We've done seemingly impossible things before.
The energy problem, The self sufficiency problem and the jobs problem can be solved today and we all know it and the middle class can be rewarded for it's work ethic.
Give a 90% federal credit to homeowners with 10 years in their primary residence up to 150% of their daily average needs and battery back up for 48 hours of outage with a 5 year minimum stay requirement instead of money to cronies and crooks. The states can kick in 5%. instead of the local cronies and crooks. All components must be manufactured. assembled and installed by bonded and insured US companies.
Jobs boom, energy freedom from foreign sources accomplished, electric cars become viable, the working middle class, Housing prices raise. families have incentive to remain and foreign influence goes away.
I know the elites don't prosper, government influence and big energy lose power but look at the up side individual freedom increases. The country becomes less vulnerable to attack and the middle class is strengthened. All reasons Socialists, big government Liberals and elitists won't even consider it.
Give a 90% federal credit to homeowners with 10 years in their primary residence up to 150% of their daily average needs and battery back up for 48 hours of outage with a 5 year minimum stay requirement instead of money to cronies and crooks. The states can kick in 5%. instead of the local cronies and crooks. All components must be manufactured. assembled and installed by bonded and insured US companies.
Jobs boom, energy freedom from foreign sources accomplished, electric cars become viable, the working middle class, Housing prices raise. families have incentive to remain and foreign influence goes away.
I know the elites don't prosper, government influence and big energy lose power but look at the up side individual freedom increases. The country becomes less vulnerable to attack and the middle class is strengthened. All reasons Socialists, big government Liberals and elitists won't even consider it.
2
Dr. Mysterious - I was with you up until the last sentence!
Since the writing is so clearly on the wall I'm stumped as to why the traditional energy producers are not already on the horse that's left the barn. Alternative energy is the future and it seems big oil/coal are leaving that future, and it's profit, on the table. Another example of idealogy trumping common sense? Or will we act only when "alternative" becomes "absolutely necessary" ?
5
Gabbyboy....good point.
The problem is basicly the classic "interia" problem.
Oil companies and their petroleum engineers see no advantage in "new ideas" as long as they can force the system to keep working the successful way it's run for the past 80 years.
Status Quo always resists the New.
We came to the crossroads in 2001, and we have spent the past 15 years or so refusing to admit that a change is needed.
1. Most energy supplies are currently going to our competitor,,,,China. The oilfields of Iraq, that the idiot savant, Paul Wolfowitz, famously claimed would pay for the invasion.....are now controlled by China. We LOST.....and now our oil supplies are becoming unstable and EXPENSIVE.
2. We have become so desparate to find a "secure oil supply" that we are willing to destroy our fresh water supplies and living environments to frack and clean coal in our own back yards........this is EXPENSIVE.
3. We dedicate our military to protecting oil supplies instead of "national defense".....this is EXPENSIVE.
The problem is basicly the classic "interia" problem.
Oil companies and their petroleum engineers see no advantage in "new ideas" as long as they can force the system to keep working the successful way it's run for the past 80 years.
Status Quo always resists the New.
We came to the crossroads in 2001, and we have spent the past 15 years or so refusing to admit that a change is needed.
1. Most energy supplies are currently going to our competitor,,,,China. The oilfields of Iraq, that the idiot savant, Paul Wolfowitz, famously claimed would pay for the invasion.....are now controlled by China. We LOST.....and now our oil supplies are becoming unstable and EXPENSIVE.
2. We have become so desparate to find a "secure oil supply" that we are willing to destroy our fresh water supplies and living environments to frack and clean coal in our own back yards........this is EXPENSIVE.
3. We dedicate our military to protecting oil supplies instead of "national defense".....this is EXPENSIVE.
There is a striking paradox of having a former governor and a current senator from Florida denying climate change in a state which already is seeing the effects of a change in terms of increasingly violent weather swings and serious beach erosion. Those of us with seaside winter homes in that state have literally watched the changes for several years and incurred expenses because of them.
Between the two of them – Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio – it is Rubio who is the most dangerous, for the simple reason that he is a much more glib and engaging speaker. Following the money does, indeed, give the key to the dishonesty of all Republicans on the subject.
It has been amusing to watch how Rubio has tried a modified back-step in the face of the clear statements by Pope Francis on environment.
Between the two of them – Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio – it is Rubio who is the most dangerous, for the simple reason that he is a much more glib and engaging speaker. Following the money does, indeed, give the key to the dishonesty of all Republicans on the subject.
It has been amusing to watch how Rubio has tried a modified back-step in the face of the clear statements by Pope Francis on environment.
11
The brilliant plan of the GOP, invest in the past, coal, oil ,
Plan of China, invest in the future solar, and to a lesser extent wind.
The Chinese government subsidizes and invests in solar, now less than 20 cents kilo unsubsidized. So the jobs go to China, who exports the equipment to the Walmart shopping USA. We get no jobs, the profits and growth go overseas. Meanwhile the GOP is bought out by the dinosaurs, slowly dieing shrinking rechnology.
And of course denying evolution yet again.
Pitiful.
Plan of China, invest in the future solar, and to a lesser extent wind.
The Chinese government subsidizes and invests in solar, now less than 20 cents kilo unsubsidized. So the jobs go to China, who exports the equipment to the Walmart shopping USA. We get no jobs, the profits and growth go overseas. Meanwhile the GOP is bought out by the dinosaurs, slowly dieing shrinking rechnology.
And of course denying evolution yet again.
Pitiful.
6
We installed a solar water heating system in our home in Lansing, Michigan in 1980. It continues to function today providing the majority of the owners' water heating needs even though Lansing is one of the worst locations for solar-powered systems in the U.S. due to its relative lack of sunlit days.
We did the same when we moved first to North Carolina and then to Costa Rica. And here, in Costa Rica, we have a grid-tied photovoltaic generating array that provides about 80% of our electricity as well as our third solar water heating system.
Don't let anybody tell you that solar doesn't work. We've been there and done that and wouldn't go back.
We did the same when we moved first to North Carolina and then to Costa Rica. And here, in Costa Rica, we have a grid-tied photovoltaic generating array that provides about 80% of our electricity as well as our third solar water heating system.
Don't let anybody tell you that solar doesn't work. We've been there and done that and wouldn't go back.
32
David C. Murray - We did the same in Anguilla in the '80's by installing solar hot water heaters - worked perfectly! Electricity on that island at that time was prohibitively expensive!
I'm in North Germany this week, where photovoltaic arrays are mainstream in both industrial parks (500 meters from here) and on old farmhouses, even at this latitude, significantly north of Montreal.
Back in Wisconsin, some friends have a Nissan Leaf auto charged by a photovoltaic array on their garage roof - net energy costs of driving their car (only urban commuting) are ZERO. While we have frittered away time, the technology is making some great gains.
Back in Wisconsin, some friends have a Nissan Leaf auto charged by a photovoltaic array on their garage roof - net energy costs of driving their car (only urban commuting) are ZERO. While we have frittered away time, the technology is making some great gains.
34
"Part of the answer is surely that promotion of renewable energy is linked in many people’s minds with attempts to limit climate change — and climate denial has become a key part of conservative identity. "
Classic straw-man strategy: to assert that benefit X is the ONLY benefit that "counts," and then crunch the numbers to show that benefit X doesn't justify the cost. To the exclusion, of course, of benefit Y, benefit Z and benefits On Beyond Zebra.
See also: High Speed Rail (or indeed passenger trains of any kind).
Welcome to the divide-and-conquer strategy practiced by today's conservatives.
Isolate one benefit.
Crunch the numbers to "prove" that this one benefit doesn't justify the cost of the entire project.
Repeat.
Dismiss.
I'm sure there's an exact term for this nihilistic style of argument, but the best I can come up with is: straw man meets reductio ad absurdum.
Classic straw-man strategy: to assert that benefit X is the ONLY benefit that "counts," and then crunch the numbers to show that benefit X doesn't justify the cost. To the exclusion, of course, of benefit Y, benefit Z and benefits On Beyond Zebra.
See also: High Speed Rail (or indeed passenger trains of any kind).
Welcome to the divide-and-conquer strategy practiced by today's conservatives.
Isolate one benefit.
Crunch the numbers to "prove" that this one benefit doesn't justify the cost of the entire project.
Repeat.
Dismiss.
I'm sure there's an exact term for this nihilistic style of argument, but the best I can come up with is: straw man meets reductio ad absurdum.
12
You would think that Republicans and the energy companies would want to be at the forefront of modern technology--solar and wind. How do you attract the young and people whose minds are young and curious if you stick to the same 'ol same 'ol. The Republicans really have become the party of elderly white men and they don't even seem to realize why.
19
The GOP is intent on enslaving America to their 19th Century energy technologies as long as it in their best interest. The result is that the US will lag behind the rest of the world as they pioneer the Energy Technologies of the 21st Century and beyond.
Eventually we will shift from reliance on foreign oil to a dependence of foreign energy technology, just to line the pockets of a select few.
Eventually we will shift from reliance on foreign oil to a dependence of foreign energy technology, just to line the pockets of a select few.
7
So, I am to believe that companies like Exxon and Shell are so hidebound that they'd rather fight newer energy technologies that promise similar results and profitability as their mainline technologies than adopt them? By that logic, they should have fought fracking tooth and nail.
I know the so-called 'renewable energy' issue is near and dear to Krugman's Progressive lap dogs, but really, is it at all possible that maybe, just maybe, oil companies aren't involved in some vast conspiracy to prevent the ascendancy of wind and solar power, but are instead not jumping on the bandwagon because they know that fossil fuels will necessarily continue to play a large role in energy markets for many years to come?
And pray tell, how does wind and solar compare economically with $50/barrel oil?
And do the doe-eyed environmental optimists really believe that wind and solar and battery are benign technologies, bereft of environmental impacts? Would we really rather prefer turning the Great Plains into a giant wind turbine farm? Would making the Southwest an enormous solar panel not have some detrimental environmental impacts beyond simply aesthetics? Can batteries be produced, used and disposed of on a mass scale without creating the same sort of toxic wastelands as the 19th century gold and silver miners did out West?
The notion of a vast right-wing conspiracy thrives among the Krugmanites, It is encouraged with articles like this from their dear leader.
I know the so-called 'renewable energy' issue is near and dear to Krugman's Progressive lap dogs, but really, is it at all possible that maybe, just maybe, oil companies aren't involved in some vast conspiracy to prevent the ascendancy of wind and solar power, but are instead not jumping on the bandwagon because they know that fossil fuels will necessarily continue to play a large role in energy markets for many years to come?
And pray tell, how does wind and solar compare economically with $50/barrel oil?
And do the doe-eyed environmental optimists really believe that wind and solar and battery are benign technologies, bereft of environmental impacts? Would we really rather prefer turning the Great Plains into a giant wind turbine farm? Would making the Southwest an enormous solar panel not have some detrimental environmental impacts beyond simply aesthetics? Can batteries be produced, used and disposed of on a mass scale without creating the same sort of toxic wastelands as the 19th century gold and silver miners did out West?
The notion of a vast right-wing conspiracy thrives among the Krugmanites, It is encouraged with articles like this from their dear leader.
5
Yes, you are indeed to believe that companies like Exxon and Shell are so hidebound that they'd rather fight newer energy technologies than continue to milk fossil fuels for every penny they can. Your analogy to fracking doesn't work, because fracking is still fossil fuels and fits squarely in Big Oil's supply chain economics, whereas wind and solar are genuine competition markets that they do not now dominate.
No one here is "doe eyed" but neither are we blind.
No one here is "doe eyed" but neither are we blind.
14
The entire Great Plains? All the Southwest? "Doe eyed"?
Hyperbole much?
Solar, especially, has become about DE-centralization, not giant solar farms - that was the kind of proposal we saw back when solar was solar heat collection rather than photovoltaics. Wind power for electrical generation (every plains dweller should know it was a mainstay for decentralized power for well over a century - do you realize that?) has been deployed in a more centralized for decades now, without turning everything into a "giant wind farm".
I recommend you educate yourself. Oh, and stay away from the news sources that use terms like "doe eyed".
Hyperbole much?
Solar, especially, has become about DE-centralization, not giant solar farms - that was the kind of proposal we saw back when solar was solar heat collection rather than photovoltaics. Wind power for electrical generation (every plains dweller should know it was a mainstay for decentralized power for well over a century - do you realize that?) has been deployed in a more centralized for decades now, without turning everything into a "giant wind farm".
I recommend you educate yourself. Oh, and stay away from the news sources that use terms like "doe eyed".
5
When did they put a $50 cap on the price of a barrel of oil? Also many solar panels go on houses, apartments and buildings.
1
If solar and wind energy are as cost efficient as Krugman falsely suggests, then the government can withdraw the taxpayer subsidies, the mandates that we buy this type of electricity and the regulations intended to raise the cost of other forms of energy.
In the real world, solar and wind energy are far more expensive than gas, coal and oil and their industries are almost completely creatures of the government living off the taxpayer.
In the real world, solar and wind energy are far more expensive than gas, coal and oil and their industries are almost completely creatures of the government living off the taxpayer.
3
Taxpayer subsidies for solar and wind will end precisely when taxpayer subsidies for oil and coal do. As Dr. Krugman points out, the cost of renewable energy is going down fast, your claim to the contrary notwithstanding.
1
In the real world, the taxpayer is heavily subsidizing the oil and gas industries--you may have missed Krugman's parenthesis: (and don’t forget that oil and gas have long been subsidized by the tax code.). Maybe if the government withdrew its subsidies from the oil and gas industries, renewables would be much more competitive than they are now.
7
Gas, coal and oil have received trillions in subsidies, tax credits, cheap leases of land and a pass on paying the real cost to clean up their giant carbon foot-print. Why not subsidize clean alternative sources? Just don't put those unnecessarily mega-sized wind turbines in areas where they in fact won't produce wind, please.... this is just a continuation of dumb energy policy to make a few new millionaires at the expense of the citizens in whose backyards the behemoths will reside.
6
Krugman's comparison of solar technology to microchips really caught my imagination. In 1986 I bought a Kaypro computer and couldn't decide between the 10kb and 15kb hard drive. Finally, I reasoned I would never fill up all the space on the 15kb drive, so opted for the cheaper version. Today, my phone can hold 32gb.
Imagine where we'd be today if the same progress had been made with solar collectors as has been made with data storage. Every person with a portable mini-solar collector that powers all his or her needs. Every home with a t.v. dish-sized collector that powers the entire house. Every car with a roof collector that gives it infinite range. No power lines. Virtually no pollution. It's achievable. We just need to unleash the technology.
Imagine where we'd be today if the same progress had been made with solar collectors as has been made with data storage. Every person with a portable mini-solar collector that powers all his or her needs. Every home with a t.v. dish-sized collector that powers the entire house. Every car with a roof collector that gives it infinite range. No power lines. Virtually no pollution. It's achievable. We just need to unleash the technology.
36
Apples and oranges. Solar faces hurdles based on the physics of the available materials. While there may be no limit to human imagination, the physical world is not so accomodating.
Republicans are loyal, once bough they stay bought. The oil companies have a constituency in people who like to drive gas guzzling cars or pickup trucks.
But things are changing even there. For years I drove cars with V8 engines, now I drive a 4 cylinder. My sons will no doubt get to drive an electric car with a battery that will go 1000 miles before recharging. Homeowners with solar panels on their roofs will have a battery big enough and cheap enough to store excess electric for night and cloudy days. .
Yet again the Republicans are on the wrong side of history and science. As the money for wind and solar shifts from fossil fuels the Republicans will edge their snouts into the troth.
The real problem for America is the present composition and tactics of the Republican party. It goes beyond their “right” to enact their radical agenda without the votes to do it by constitutional means and their resorting to holding our economy and the full faith and credit of our government hostage several times a year to demand policies the majority rejects, or where they have a majority quickly silence the voice of the minority. It is who should hold high office in America.
Is it too much to ask that officeholders, regardless of party should be patriots? A patriot is a person who places the intersts of his nation above the interests of his party and himself. Since the Republicans place party ideology interest above the interests of their country they fail that test.
But things are changing even there. For years I drove cars with V8 engines, now I drive a 4 cylinder. My sons will no doubt get to drive an electric car with a battery that will go 1000 miles before recharging. Homeowners with solar panels on their roofs will have a battery big enough and cheap enough to store excess electric for night and cloudy days. .
Yet again the Republicans are on the wrong side of history and science. As the money for wind and solar shifts from fossil fuels the Republicans will edge their snouts into the troth.
The real problem for America is the present composition and tactics of the Republican party. It goes beyond their “right” to enact their radical agenda without the votes to do it by constitutional means and their resorting to holding our economy and the full faith and credit of our government hostage several times a year to demand policies the majority rejects, or where they have a majority quickly silence the voice of the minority. It is who should hold high office in America.
Is it too much to ask that officeholders, regardless of party should be patriots? A patriot is a person who places the intersts of his nation above the interests of his party and himself. Since the Republicans place party ideology interest above the interests of their country they fail that test.
33
Here in western NC, there is a major public uprising over Duke Energy's plans to build a new thirty mile long transmission line that will require towers averaging 140 feet tall, an eyesore in the beautiful mountains vistas and horse pastures if built. Duke promotes its plan by calling it "modernization" needed to meet the increasing energy demands of a fast growing region, and further sweetens it by including plans to replace an existing coal fired plant with one using "far cleaner" natural gas. As a former utility specialist with an international accounting firm, I strongly suspect that Duke's true motivation is not modernization, but a "rate base" defense against modernization. If, as is increasingly obvious, solar and, to a lesser extent in our region, wind power ultimately replace fossil fuel power generation, Duke's antiquated business model of centralized generation and distribution will be rendered entirely obsolete. That won't do for shareholders, and definitely not for executive compensation. So, the rate base must be increased, and the landscape doomed. How much better if Duke's management exhibited the foresight for which it is royally compensated by investing in power storage and financing/installing solar systems? I know, I am dreaming. And our country continues down its nightmare path of climate destruction - all in the name of greed.
40
No one should confuse generation with distribution. Even in a wind and solar future, issues like base load and efficient transmission will need to be addressed.
1
Jobs in the solar industry certainly must also be much safer and healthier for it's workers than is coal mining.Besides which energy derived from coal is the dirtiest in current use.And a major commitment to changing over from fossil fuel energy to solar and wind is doubly beneficial economically; by producing both manufacturing and construction jobs,and as the cost of renewable energy continues to drop,saving consumers more money to spend on the rest of the economy.
8
On the flip side of that coin, the benefits of solar have been consistently overstated and costs both financially and environmentally have been understated. Furthermore available systems to provide, even on a bright sunny summer day, sufficient power are large, and still terribly in efficient
1
450 sq ft of south facing roof top delivers approx 5.6KW of power. No line loss from the hundred or more miles of transmission line and wait for it, the rugged individual (a right wing claim to fame) is free or reduced in his need for the grid. Given cyber attacks that occur regularly now, why do you want a centralized computer controlled power grid? Almost everything the right winger claims to oppose is supported by a centralized vulnerable to attack power grid. Does this mean right wingers really don't mean it when they make claims to the opposite?
We installed 24 240 watt solar panels on the roof of our house in sunny Seattle in 2013. We didn't pay sales tax and received a $7,000 federal tax credit. On top of those incentives, we receive 15 cents per kwh per year that the panels produce. We have not paid for electricity to our all electric house since January of this year and don't expect to get a bill any time soon. That's a pretty good investment not only in dollar terms but in what we provide to our primarily hydro-produced grid. Politics aside, facts are facts.
You should be aware that with the present solar energy collectors, a 130 mile by 130 mile array can provide the entire WORLD with sufficient power. The solar panels need to be in a sunny location, and then the question is how to distribute the power to big cities. As John Walker points out, the distribution is the problem. However, smaller solar arrays could power individual locations.
As usual, lots of knowledgeable comments. And the usual silly disregard of the facts of science and technology from the usual suspects.
There are, in an engineering sense, optimal uses for different energy sources. But we don't use them optimally at all, because of the economic/political/historical forces driving policy. The system that exists is simply *wrong* in terms of maximizing good (value) from the available resources.
We have all of these opinions, and even when they recognize the concept of disruptive technology, they remain burdened with attachment to existing structures. So I'll pose this question (with due credit to John Rawls):
Given current technology, if we were starting afresh, with no vested interests and no infrastructure, what would our choices be for establishing the nature of, and meeting our need for, energy consumption?
So, for example, if you are a nuclear fan: Would you really build nuclear plants to light led's, and still use gasoline in internal combustion engines for cars?
If you are a coal fan, would you really build a network of railroads to haul heavy rocks from one place to the other so we can get 33% of their stored energy in usable form?
And so on. The exercise is to design a policy that lets us maximally benefit over the long term. Have at it.
There are, in an engineering sense, optimal uses for different energy sources. But we don't use them optimally at all, because of the economic/political/historical forces driving policy. The system that exists is simply *wrong* in terms of maximizing good (value) from the available resources.
We have all of these opinions, and even when they recognize the concept of disruptive technology, they remain burdened with attachment to existing structures. So I'll pose this question (with due credit to John Rawls):
Given current technology, if we were starting afresh, with no vested interests and no infrastructure, what would our choices be for establishing the nature of, and meeting our need for, energy consumption?
So, for example, if you are a nuclear fan: Would you really build nuclear plants to light led's, and still use gasoline in internal combustion engines for cars?
If you are a coal fan, would you really build a network of railroads to haul heavy rocks from one place to the other so we can get 33% of their stored energy in usable form?
And so on. The exercise is to design a policy that lets us maximally benefit over the long term. Have at it.
18
Don't ignore the most fundamental fact: if it's truly cheaper, someone will invest in it for the chance to gain profit. Businesses that knowingly choose the more expensive option usually end up going out of business.
If only we thought this way about our agriculture and food system as well.
The coal and petroleum industries are rapidly heading toward becoming the "United Buggywhips" of the 21st century. Had the boards and executives of these industries been even a bit prescient, they would have spent at least a few of their billions of corporate assets on R&D in renewables instead of more oil leases, exploration and blowing the tops off of Mountains. Instead of "Exxon" we might have seen "Exsun."
11
I would go further back than the Cheney carbon-only policy committee. Most voters today would not remember that President Reagan's crowning achievement in energy policy was to remove the solar panels that President Carter had installed on the WH roof.
It was a symbolic gesture that marked an administration that ignored energy efficiency, alternate energy and self sufficiency. It was an administration that oversaw the greatest transfer of wealth out of America, and unfortunately, to the Middle East. Wealth that was used to harm America and which we are still paying for.
The Cheney-Bush energy policy was a continuation of Reagan's historically consequential and wrongheaded error.
Imagine a $2-3 trillion investment in alternate energy rather than ME wars.
It was a symbolic gesture that marked an administration that ignored energy efficiency, alternate energy and self sufficiency. It was an administration that oversaw the greatest transfer of wealth out of America, and unfortunately, to the Middle East. Wealth that was used to harm America and which we are still paying for.
The Cheney-Bush energy policy was a continuation of Reagan's historically consequential and wrongheaded error.
Imagine a $2-3 trillion investment in alternate energy rather than ME wars.
30
It will become an interesting tug-of-war when the growing "new energy" industry starts fighting "old energy" for control of policy. Of course the real winners will be Congress, taking money from both sides. Milo Minderbinder would be proud.
4
Scott,
Great reference to Joseph Heller's "Catch 22." If I remember correctly, Milo bombed his/our own base to make up for his losses on Egyptian cotton. Things haven't changed much.
Great reference to Joseph Heller's "Catch 22." If I remember correctly, Milo bombed his/our own base to make up for his losses on Egyptian cotton. Things haven't changed much.
1
Paul: Anyway to broadcast the fact that Solar industry employs more people than Coal Mining? I was totally unaware of this as one concerned about the enviorment.
Wind power is another area of growing employment; any employment numbers?
To exploit Wind Power, We need to improve the Power Grid to move energy from Generation locations--Western & Middle Wester states and Offshore wind power on both Atlantic & Pacific shores to power hungry cities nearby.
Wind power is another area of growing employment; any employment numbers?
To exploit Wind Power, We need to improve the Power Grid to move energy from Generation locations--Western & Middle Wester states and Offshore wind power on both Atlantic & Pacific shores to power hungry cities nearby.
16
Rather than saying Old or New Energy, Fossil Fuels or Renewables, just say it plain and simple: Dirty Energy or Clean Energy. Words matter and form lasting perceptions of reality.
And it is not only a matter of which political party Dirty Energy is funding but also the obscene amounts they are donating to individual campaign coffers, Super Pacs and so-called think tanks. The Koch Brothers alone vowed to spend $1 billion on the 2016 Presidential campaign.
And it is not only a matter of which political party Dirty Energy is funding but also the obscene amounts they are donating to individual campaign coffers, Super Pacs and so-called think tanks. The Koch Brothers alone vowed to spend $1 billion on the 2016 Presidential campaign.
29
Solar and wind -- the ultimate disruptive technologies that will be the undoing of the sclerotic fossil fuel giants. What we need now is a fair carbon tax to finally tip the scales.
22
"When it comes to energy policy, the G.O.P. has become fossilized. "
Great pun, Professor Krugman. I rocked in my seat so much I nearly fell off.
Great pun, Professor Krugman. I rocked in my seat so much I nearly fell off.
9
Dear Mr. Krugman,
Once the Koch brothers, or others of their ilk, see the potential for a. profit and b. monopoly in "sustainable energy" then the GOP/TP/KOCH AFFILIATE might be prodded into action on the solar/wind front.
Until then, there's oil to be had and the Keystone pipeline will provide it, fracking will provide it and the politicians taking millions from the 'energy industry' will continue to promote the drilling for 'black gold'.
Too bad there isn't some system in place to rid us of these people in office, some method by which they can be replaced by the choices of the people rather than the same old same old. Oh yes, I forgot, as did 64% of the 'voters' in 2014, we get to vote these people in or out of office. Seems the electorate is very happy with the 'system' as is or, most likely, they just can't bring themselves to get out and vote.
Until the 'people' use their power, the situation will stay the same with the 1% calling the shots and the bulk of the American populace meekly going along for the very expensive ride.
Once the Koch brothers, or others of their ilk, see the potential for a. profit and b. monopoly in "sustainable energy" then the GOP/TP/KOCH AFFILIATE might be prodded into action on the solar/wind front.
Until then, there's oil to be had and the Keystone pipeline will provide it, fracking will provide it and the politicians taking millions from the 'energy industry' will continue to promote the drilling for 'black gold'.
Too bad there isn't some system in place to rid us of these people in office, some method by which they can be replaced by the choices of the people rather than the same old same old. Oh yes, I forgot, as did 64% of the 'voters' in 2014, we get to vote these people in or out of office. Seems the electorate is very happy with the 'system' as is or, most likely, they just can't bring themselves to get out and vote.
Until the 'people' use their power, the situation will stay the same with the 1% calling the shots and the bulk of the American populace meekly going along for the very expensive ride.
7
Today's American conservatives are the enemy of the future and therefore the enemy of time, because until time machines are developed, time marches inexorably toward the future.
Does this state the obvious at a pre-school level of scholarship? Indeed it does, but the right-wing has yet to master the complex concept.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
Does this state the obvious at a pre-school level of scholarship? Indeed it does, but the right-wing has yet to master the complex concept.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
5
Republicans approach energy like they approach everything else: follow the money. Republicans first ask themselves, what do our wealthy parasitic capitalists want? Presently, the greed-consumed capitalist want to get every dime possible out of fossil fuels before those 19th Century technology resources are exhausted. They are not concerned about the environmental impacts. Polluting the air by burning coal and oil, and poisoning potable ground water by fracking serves the interests of vampire capitalism. The deadly pollution gives them a whole new arena to make money. Just as many people buy bottled water instead of drinking tap water, some day we will need to buy bottled oxygen to breathe. Pollution is a money making opportunity for greedy capitalists. Republicans will get around to supporting solar and wind energy only when their wealthy owners have finished raping the earth of fossil fuels. Follow the money.
14
The Sauidi effort to drown alternative energy in cheap oil promises to crash the global economy.
The world needs a financial plan to phase out fossil fuel and return capital to its investors.
The world needs a financial plan to phase out fossil fuel and return capital to its investors.
3
We now have solar panels on our roof (in sunny {ha ha!} Massachusetts) that produce all the juice we need on an annual basis. We are still on the grid and so the energy flows into and out of the grid as produced/needed. I can't imagine why every house in the Sunbelt doesn't have the same, though I suspect that many people are simply bullheaded about embracing any such "greenie/lefty/whatever" energy solutions. Meanwhile Prof K is right about one weird and unfortunate effect of global warming as a political issue: the debate about it overshadows the many other more "localized" costs of fossil fuel. Among these are the socio-economic, health and environmental wreckage of Coal Country. Even the "good old days" weren't so good in WV/Kentucky/etc., and now mountaintop removal reduces the work force even further (and much of they produce is exported - so much for US energy independence!). A very small percentage of workers in coal states actually work in the industry anymore and they still face often unsafe work conditions as many mine operators flout health and safety laws. Hard to imagine how McConnell and ilk still make political hay in their home states on the so-called "War on Coal". Seems to me the coal companies are the ones making war.
11
My home town is currently suffering from flooding. I am from South Carolina. It is a weather event with no relation to climatic warming, which I do believe in. I am very tire of people trying to tie weather events to climate when anyone with any sense realizes that the statistic show that there has been no increase in the number of storms or the severity. Such claims only turn people away from climatic warming belief.
1
I understand the difficulties you are having now, and am very sympathetic. However, many studies show an increased number and severity of storms since 1950 in the Northeast and elsewhere. See the following government report:
http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/our-changing-climate/changes-storms
http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/our-changing-climate/changes-storms
Energy policy per se probably won't be a major campaign issue but global warming (ordinary folk don't say climate science) certainly will be. Given droughts, vast wild fires in the west, deluges in the Carolinas, this is a topic with wide resonance in the public mind. And Republicans find themselves trapped on the wrong side of the argument.
8
There is a fundamental truth in legislative action here in Colorado, As one state senator put it, "Nothing passes the Colorado legislature without approval from the energy giants, Anadarco, Noble Energy and, of course, BP. Though a legal loophole, the State uses "preemption" to override community laws and regulations against drilling and fracking where it is unwanted.
These companies move into small towns and rural communities with seeming impunity with plans to drill and frack without resistance. But resistance is ramping up within those communities. And this should be taking place throughout the country for several reasons.
For one, fracking uses millions of gallons of local water supplies sometimes draining local aquifers which are needed for local residential and agricultural needs. Secondly, resistance to intrusive drilling and fracking will put pressure on lawmakers to put more focus and investment in alternative energy science. Third, it will tell lawmakers that the people and the environment are more important than the lobbyists who parcel out campaign contributions on behalf of their energy clients.
Of course, there are the fear-mongers from oil and coal who tell us about lost jobs in their industries if solar and wind overtake the energy market. But this transition will take years to phase in. It will not take place overnight. So while jobs begin to wind down in coal, the jobs will transition to new energy. Oil is probably here to stay but coal must go.
These companies move into small towns and rural communities with seeming impunity with plans to drill and frack without resistance. But resistance is ramping up within those communities. And this should be taking place throughout the country for several reasons.
For one, fracking uses millions of gallons of local water supplies sometimes draining local aquifers which are needed for local residential and agricultural needs. Secondly, resistance to intrusive drilling and fracking will put pressure on lawmakers to put more focus and investment in alternative energy science. Third, it will tell lawmakers that the people and the environment are more important than the lobbyists who parcel out campaign contributions on behalf of their energy clients.
Of course, there are the fear-mongers from oil and coal who tell us about lost jobs in their industries if solar and wind overtake the energy market. But this transition will take years to phase in. It will not take place overnight. So while jobs begin to wind down in coal, the jobs will transition to new energy. Oil is probably here to stay but coal must go.
16
OK, I drive a fuel efficient car. I am getting ready to put up solar panels at the cabin to augment the geothermal system. But, I also can read. The percentage of wind and solar power is tiny. Walmart has put up more solar panels than the citizens of thirty five states ( to show how small it is). Wind is a bird killer, even though I pay more to the local utility to use it ( they have a special higher wind power rate if you are willing to pay). My sense is that nuclear is ultimately going to be the only way to go. Obviously, this does not solve the transportation issue, but it will solve the rest. I hope I am wrong, but solar has to get much cheaper with less red tape.
9
Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, current republican candidates for the presidency, seem as confused as ever about humanity's , and Earth's, perils (regarding human-caused climate warming); but that confusion is not because they are dumb; to the contrary, they depend on willful ignorance, as their sponsors are the biggest polluters that refuse to see reality, for the bottom line. Renewable energy is on its way up. more efficient as time goes by, displacing, in due time, fossil fuels...and the fossilized minds that do not seem to care for their children's fate. Stupidity, for now, evades eviction.
6
The Republicans are no more the enemies of the Sun than are the Democrats. The leadership of both parties have signed onto The Project for a New American Century, and that means that the control, of most of the World's Energy Supply, must remain in the hands of the United States of America.
We have watched for most of this century as the outliers like Venezuela, Libya, Iran and Iraq have struggled to break the hold of the oil independents by a series of nationalizations, which have led to regime change in the dissenting countries or punishment by sanctions.
The Oil Independents like Exxonmobil and Chevron/Texaco are the handmaidens of the Pax Americana, and they were badly shaken by the attempts of the dissenters to shut them out in order to capitalize upon their wealth from the ground.
We have fought resource wars everywhere that there is fossil fuel (The Middle East), strategic ground for pipeline transit (Afghanistan), and at the choke points along the maritime distribution routes (Yemen, Somalia, etc.) in order to ensure that petrodollar circulation re enforces the dollar as reserve currency of the world through oil based dollar mercantilism. The nations of the world must go into dollars under this regime if they want to have power. It is that simple.
When one considers the costs incurred in the maintenance of the Pax Americana through wars, sanctions and endless security, fossil fuel has become too expensive relative to the Sun, but this is the price of Empire.
We have watched for most of this century as the outliers like Venezuela, Libya, Iran and Iraq have struggled to break the hold of the oil independents by a series of nationalizations, which have led to regime change in the dissenting countries or punishment by sanctions.
The Oil Independents like Exxonmobil and Chevron/Texaco are the handmaidens of the Pax Americana, and they were badly shaken by the attempts of the dissenters to shut them out in order to capitalize upon their wealth from the ground.
We have fought resource wars everywhere that there is fossil fuel (The Middle East), strategic ground for pipeline transit (Afghanistan), and at the choke points along the maritime distribution routes (Yemen, Somalia, etc.) in order to ensure that petrodollar circulation re enforces the dollar as reserve currency of the world through oil based dollar mercantilism. The nations of the world must go into dollars under this regime if they want to have power. It is that simple.
When one considers the costs incurred in the maintenance of the Pax Americana through wars, sanctions and endless security, fossil fuel has become too expensive relative to the Sun, but this is the price of Empire.
8
And we environmentalists pray Krugman is wrong about the economics of renewable energy. Has he ever driven from Palm Springs to Bakersfield in California. The windmills and solar fields have absolutely destroyed the environment. And we produce about 3% renewal. If we produced a majority of it, you never would see a stetch of landscape left in America.
2
So, a landscape filled with oil derricks is better?
Masterful!
Leading with the Cheney energy task force cuts to the core of the issue. I remember. I cried foul! But, was reminded by older wise men of public policy that in our system those that gained the privilege of posing the question and thereby setting the Agenda was determined by Money.
A lot of our BIG MONEY was created in the 19th C & 20th C by fossil fuel technologies, in transportation and electric power generation. No one can deny the economic benefits of fossil fuels & it was a great investment. BUT the facts are that the rate of growth in fossil fuels have slowed and are peaking. They are a bad investment.
Quick investment guide:
Fossil energy, none of the above.
Alternative energy, all of the above.
Solar will continue to improve by leaps and bounds. I hope we have enough sense to put solar panel factories in coal country. I also hope that the US will lead in the creation of space solar launched with Maglev. This has the potential of providing 2 Cents per Kwh electricity to the grid from the place where the sun always shines. With cheap electricity, we know how to make synthetic gasoline, diesel & jet fuel from air & water.
In most countries we will need to evolve to electric transport by mid century. We should do it with superconducting Maglev because it only sips electrons and it a faster means to carry both highway trucks as well as passengers. It was invented here by James Powell and Gordon Danby. Another new industry for the World.
Leading with the Cheney energy task force cuts to the core of the issue. I remember. I cried foul! But, was reminded by older wise men of public policy that in our system those that gained the privilege of posing the question and thereby setting the Agenda was determined by Money.
A lot of our BIG MONEY was created in the 19th C & 20th C by fossil fuel technologies, in transportation and electric power generation. No one can deny the economic benefits of fossil fuels & it was a great investment. BUT the facts are that the rate of growth in fossil fuels have slowed and are peaking. They are a bad investment.
Quick investment guide:
Fossil energy, none of the above.
Alternative energy, all of the above.
Solar will continue to improve by leaps and bounds. I hope we have enough sense to put solar panel factories in coal country. I also hope that the US will lead in the creation of space solar launched with Maglev. This has the potential of providing 2 Cents per Kwh electricity to the grid from the place where the sun always shines. With cheap electricity, we know how to make synthetic gasoline, diesel & jet fuel from air & water.
In most countries we will need to evolve to electric transport by mid century. We should do it with superconducting Maglev because it only sips electrons and it a faster means to carry both highway trucks as well as passengers. It was invented here by James Powell and Gordon Danby. Another new industry for the World.
5
Jeb and Rubio likely nominees? Jeb may well be gone beforle New Hampshire. The Repubicans are going to nominate a pro-immigrant Hispanic with no experience and a strange name like Barack Obama? I guess Krugman thinks Republicans now are pro-diversity and anti-nativist. Even the Democrats would not nominate an Hispanic yet.
And of course oil is anti-Obama. His big pro-carbon energy policy has destroyed the price of oil and oil company profits.
And of course oil is anti-Obama. His big pro-carbon energy policy has destroyed the price of oil and oil company profits.
2
Even with all the climate science denial and championing the cause of fossil fuels if the opponents of the new and clean sources of energy try to deny the arrival of disruptive technology on energy front too, like in other businesses close to their heart, that has changed the whole meaning of business and returns, they are bound to lose both relevance and resources in business and politics as well. It's time for the fossilised GOP elite to see light under the Sun.
10
Several facts that Krugman conveniently leaves out. First, people with solar panels or windmills need to disconnect from the grid such that the rest of us do not have to pay the power companies for standby generating capacity when the panels or windmills are not working ( as in the night or no wind days). Second, the underwriting of wind and solar with taxpayer money needs to stop because the purchasers of these systems need to pay for them. Using tax credits distorts the true costs of these systems. Oil and gas for extremely small operators has an oil depletion allowance. Krugman full well knows that major oil companies do not, but he tries to mislead the reader anyway. We do need to follow the money and the beneficiary of these taxpayer funded government subsidies is the Democrat party as it continues its relentless drive to have government buy things for people and thereby buy their votes.
2
@ James
Buying things for people? Apparently you're unaware that the traditional energy industries are recipients of a host of tax breaks.
Buying things for people? Apparently you're unaware that the traditional energy industries are recipients of a host of tax breaks.
11
This is half right. The Democrats buy no votes with subsidies, but campaign contributions of those who want the subsides. Like Gore with his $200 million fortune or Tom Steyer, the Democratic Koch brothers, or on a lesser scale Warren Buffet
.
.
2
Hoe exactly do traditional utility customers "pay the power companies for standby generating capacity when the panels or windmills are not working (as in the night or no wind days)"? Don't electricity and natural gas providers already deal with a surge in usage between the hours of 1700 and 2200, daily? Should we also mandate disconnection during the day when residential solar customers produce a surplus of energy and can sell back to the utilities?
I(you, we) have paid for several wars (to the tune of several trillion dollars) and the century-long effort to control/destabilize the governments of oil producing Third World countries with our tax dollars and the blood of innocents. All to ensure the profits of corporations from Standard Oil in the 1910's to Exxon/Mobil today.
Shouldn't this very real cost be figured into any balance sheet determining the true cost of fossil fuels?
I(you, we) have paid for several wars (to the tune of several trillion dollars) and the century-long effort to control/destabilize the governments of oil producing Third World countries with our tax dollars and the blood of innocents. All to ensure the profits of corporations from Standard Oil in the 1910's to Exxon/Mobil today.
Shouldn't this very real cost be figured into any balance sheet determining the true cost of fossil fuels?
1
OK commenters and Professor K, then I will fill the yawning gap and mention the unmentionable. Nuclear energy is the most efficient, safest, cleanest and sensible way to produce all the power the world needs, especially for the USA. After years of falsifying facts by ignorant (and oil lobby rich) politicians, plus a compliant media driven by the need to sell frightening stories, we have ended up with the extraordinary result that even enlightened people like PK cannot bring themselves to even mention nuclear. We are apparently frozen in fear. There are so many cases to discuss, but here is just one example:
* Chernobyl was caused by a steam (not nuclear) explosion when electrical engineers were running an experiment that was not approved. 31 people died within days of the accident - not the thousands predicted by the anti nuclear press and never corrected. And these predictions were based on US type reactors, which have multiple layers of containment, while Chernobyl had none.
* Future cancer deaths are now estimated to be about 20,000 over 50 years (re Prof Richard Wilson of Harvard U, IAEA and others), or 400 deaths per year. Fossil fuel-produced air pollution has caused at least 200,000 deaths per year, worldwide. Even if we cut this in half to allow for recent improvements in scrubbers and use of natural gas, there still would have to 250 nuclear accidents like Chernobyl PER YEAR to equal this carnage.
* Chernobyl was caused by a steam (not nuclear) explosion when electrical engineers were running an experiment that was not approved. 31 people died within days of the accident - not the thousands predicted by the anti nuclear press and never corrected. And these predictions were based on US type reactors, which have multiple layers of containment, while Chernobyl had none.
* Future cancer deaths are now estimated to be about 20,000 over 50 years (re Prof Richard Wilson of Harvard U, IAEA and others), or 400 deaths per year. Fossil fuel-produced air pollution has caused at least 200,000 deaths per year, worldwide. Even if we cut this in half to allow for recent improvements in scrubbers and use of natural gas, there still would have to 250 nuclear accidents like Chernobyl PER YEAR to equal this carnage.
7
nuclear is neither safe nor efficient and will never be until the wastes and clean up of closed facilities is taken into consideration in reality.
Oh yes, and it is unnecessary.
Oh yes, and it is unnecessary.
7
Nuclear energy can never be safe, because of the requirement for storage of waste that will remain radioactive for tens of thousands of years, and we cannot secure anything for that length of time.
4
You mention Chernobyl but seem to have forgotten Fukashima. The cores have melted down and no one has any idea how to stop the flow of radiation or make a large area safe for humans again. I used to support nuclear for kind of reasons you give but wind and solar now cost less for the same capacity.
Faith in nuclear requires that nuclear power plant operators never behave like WV or Enron or Koch Industries or Lehman Brothers. The nuclear operators had forty years to prove the could be trusted but they blew it.
There will never be a news article "large solar spill endangers millions."
Faith in nuclear requires that nuclear power plant operators never behave like WV or Enron or Koch Industries or Lehman Brothers. The nuclear operators had forty years to prove the could be trusted but they blew it.
There will never be a news article "large solar spill endangers millions."
Nothing new here. The Republican platform for 2012,contained no mention of energy efficiency, a break from previous Republican Party platforms. The efficiency plank came amid a conservative and business backlash against energy efficiency measures.
Late last month, a group of Ohio GOP policymakers released their recommendations to indefinitely freeze the state's clean energy and energy efficiency targets. Their misinformed recommendations, if implemented, would once again deliver a major setback to Ohio energy bill payers and the state's clean energy economy.
These are the same folks who go on and on about gummit waste and inefficiency. However, when it comes to profits, they heed their masters. They quietly overturn years of energy efficiency because their masters, who sing about the glories of the free market, don't want any competition.
Late last month, a group of Ohio GOP policymakers released their recommendations to indefinitely freeze the state's clean energy and energy efficiency targets. Their misinformed recommendations, if implemented, would once again deliver a major setback to Ohio energy bill payers and the state's clean energy economy.
These are the same folks who go on and on about gummit waste and inefficiency. However, when it comes to profits, they heed their masters. They quietly overturn years of energy efficiency because their masters, who sing about the glories of the free market, don't want any competition.
7
Mr. Krugman, for an economist, you're remarkably dense about the power dynamics here.
You've bought into the "Big Oil hates renewable energy" meme lock, stock, and barrel. Your theory seems to be that Big Oil hates renewable energy because cheap renewable energy will put it out of business.
But consider: Big Oil is one of the top supporters of WWF, Greenpeace, and other lobbyists for renewables. BP is one of the founders of the US Climate Action Partnership, another lobbying organization.
Why is Big Oil doing this? As a shallow PR maneuver to burnish its reputation?
Not at all! Ask yourself "Cui bono."
Who benefits when the price of energy is kept artificially high (as results from a mandated move towards renewable energy)? That's right---by keeping the price of energy artificially high, Big Oil can raise its rates and STILL look good, increasing its profit margins.
The one thing that Big Oil hates and fears is not renewable energy, which will always cost more than the traditional sort, except for very specialized geographies (eg deserts for solar power, fjords for hydroelectric) and for relatively small populations. Big Oil hates and fears the prospect of cheap, clean, energy that can be provided at scale to billions of people. Nuclear fusion is the most promising possibility.
By focusing on renewable energy, which cannot do either, Big OIl succeeds in diverting us from the search. And you're playing right along!
You've bought into the "Big Oil hates renewable energy" meme lock, stock, and barrel. Your theory seems to be that Big Oil hates renewable energy because cheap renewable energy will put it out of business.
But consider: Big Oil is one of the top supporters of WWF, Greenpeace, and other lobbyists for renewables. BP is one of the founders of the US Climate Action Partnership, another lobbying organization.
Why is Big Oil doing this? As a shallow PR maneuver to burnish its reputation?
Not at all! Ask yourself "Cui bono."
Who benefits when the price of energy is kept artificially high (as results from a mandated move towards renewable energy)? That's right---by keeping the price of energy artificially high, Big Oil can raise its rates and STILL look good, increasing its profit margins.
The one thing that Big Oil hates and fears is not renewable energy, which will always cost more than the traditional sort, except for very specialized geographies (eg deserts for solar power, fjords for hydroelectric) and for relatively small populations. Big Oil hates and fears the prospect of cheap, clean, energy that can be provided at scale to billions of people. Nuclear fusion is the most promising possibility.
By focusing on renewable energy, which cannot do either, Big OIl succeeds in diverting us from the search. And you're playing right along!
3
another repeat of fossil fuel talking points...
how dare you address a Nobel winner...
how dare you address a Nobel winner...
History will recognize the GOP's efforts to block action on climate as a crime against humanity.
42
Well if the USA does not want the business ... meanwhile here in the UK one business has secured just a $1.8 billion order for hydrogen fuel cells as back up to 27,400 of India's telecoms towers. Apparently the fuel cells are less expensive than conventional diesel back up generators.
http://www.intelligent-energy.com/news-and-events/company-news/2015/10/0...
http://www.intelligent-energy.com/news-and-events/company-news/2015/10/0...
7
£1.8 billion / 24,700 towers = £65,693 per tower. That would buy a whole buncha diesel...
Someone mentioned the Kentucky coal mines and how new energy will turn over their economies --- what about the Middle East? What role does solar and wind have to do in the current turmoil, if any? I think their milk and honey is oil? And, I know we are over there for the oil, but I also read someone suggesting the Saudi's get busy with solar? I'm beginning to think, "the land of milk and honey" is the land with water and sunshine.
1
Coal mining for Heaven;s sake! What century are we living in? Mitch won't be in Congress forever and Rand Paul is highly unlikely to be President so hopefully we can move beyond that particular brand of nonsense.
The morons in the GOP Congress are holding this country back in so many ways. Let's hope we can make serious inroads in voting them out in this next election.
The morons in the GOP Congress are holding this country back in so many ways. Let's hope we can make serious inroads in voting them out in this next election.
42
To all those who assert that we can frack our way to energy independence: When our oil/gas arrive at the coastal ports, it is put on ships bound for lucrative overseas markets. The product will be delivered to the customer/country that pays the most, not just to good Murkins who patriotically support the status quo. Even the details of how much refining gets done at US facilities have already been hashed out. Heck, some of these refineries have been purchased by other rich countries! Sometimes I think progressives are the true conservatives; sometimes progress is the right path to conserve our nation "from sea to shining sea" . The only constant is change. Sometimes it's good!
10
Cynicism or undeniable truth? The human capacity for greed, self-serving myopia and self interest (despite detriment to one's own children and grandchildren) is ubiquitous and always has been. Now, the planet and human existence are at a tipping point, and the jackals of Kochdom et al will do all they can to perpetuate the status quo.
11
Krugman hits yet another nail on its head.
15
I want energy at the lowest price. I don't care if it is solar, geothermal, wave-power, coal, or hamster wheels.
And I don't want govt to subsidize one form over another with my tax dollars.
And I don't want govt to subsidize one form over another with my tax dollars.
1
How about subsidizing with our health? It's not just our tax dollars that subsidized fossil fuels, we subsidize with every breathe we take, every drop of water we drink, and every bite of food we eat!
6
It already does. Oil and coal has been subsidized since the 1900's, including a coal subsidy enacted during the Korean War, to remove coal taxation to fund that war.
6
Hey, Brian--what about the environment?
I spent 45 minutes driving through the beautiful and amazing wind farms west and east of Amarillo last summer. The American people are resourceful. Ignore politicians.
7
The key phrase in your essay is, "in advanced countries".
In many areas, not the least science and technology, we are no longer an advanced country. Have we become an economic and social third-world country?
Not yet but the Republicans are working at it.
In many areas, not the least science and technology, we are no longer an advanced country. Have we become an economic and social third-world country?
Not yet but the Republicans are working at it.
8
Hard to believe the EPA was started by Republicans.
13
It was started by Richard Nixon. Probably the last liberal democatic president.
Presently the average worldwide tonnage of CO2e per person is about 4.5 tons with the enormous range of about .5 ton in Sierra Leone and about 23 tons in the USA. Image that the world community and its leaders would agree to develop a 10- year plan where the average of CO2e per person would be about 10 tons.
Millions of people have placed themselves on a voluntary carbon budget and would probably be in favor of having an aspirational goal of a low carbon goal. Approached from this angle making this specific tonnage of 10 CO2e per person the monetary standard would be a logical step. It would have enormous implications for the global monetary, financial, economic and commercial systems. The conceptual, institutional, ethical and strategic dimensions of such carbon-based international monetary system are presented in Verhagen 2012 “The Tierra Solution: Resolving the climate crisis through monetary transformation” and updated at www.timun.net.
Millions of people have placed themselves on a voluntary carbon budget and would probably be in favor of having an aspirational goal of a low carbon goal. Approached from this angle making this specific tonnage of 10 CO2e per person the monetary standard would be a logical step. It would have enormous implications for the global monetary, financial, economic and commercial systems. The conceptual, institutional, ethical and strategic dimensions of such carbon-based international monetary system are presented in Verhagen 2012 “The Tierra Solution: Resolving the climate crisis through monetary transformation” and updated at www.timun.net.
1
You need to look no further than 1981. One of Reagan's first moves as President was to remove Solar Panels from the White House.
An installed working system that was saving money was removed at the tax payers expense, for what? A nod to his friends.
The GOP defined in one move by it's patron saint.
An installed working system that was saving money was removed at the tax payers expense, for what? A nod to his friends.
The GOP defined in one move by it's patron saint.
94
The fossil fuel industry is similar to the ice cutting industry in the Hudson Valley. On it's last legs? It's costs in the Middle East have become unbearable. Sure, oil is cheap and easy to get out of the ground in Saudi Arabia etc but how much does it cost to defend it, the shipping lanes and refineries? How many wars does cheap oil cause? Some estimates of the healthcare costs caused by burning hydrocarbons is 50% of the total when illness, death, sick time, productivity are factored in. Hydrocarbons are carcinogenic. The hidden health costs, the subsidies and tax credits, the DOD expenditures are not reflected into the price we pay for hydrocarbons at the pump or on the grid. Then there is Climate Change costs which most Republicans deny because their jobs depend on denying it.
There are selfish reasons to cling to fossil fuels: your job, your portfolio, your community, your state, your beliefs. There are greedy reasons, there are cruel reasons too. At some point all of those reasons will be dwarfed by your concern for your family, your grandchildren. When the false narratives about imaginary remedies for poisoned air, ocean, climate change, and escalating droughts with resultant deaths, immigration, wars and refugees overwhelm the paltry provisions that we may attempt it may be too late. When global war sounds like a rational choice we will know that our rationale was a perverse manipulation.
There are selfish reasons to cling to fossil fuels: your job, your portfolio, your community, your state, your beliefs. There are greedy reasons, there are cruel reasons too. At some point all of those reasons will be dwarfed by your concern for your family, your grandchildren. When the false narratives about imaginary remedies for poisoned air, ocean, climate change, and escalating droughts with resultant deaths, immigration, wars and refugees overwhelm the paltry provisions that we may attempt it may be too late. When global war sounds like a rational choice we will know that our rationale was a perverse manipulation.
15
If one were to have a political philosophy, it should at least be consistent and coherent. All the parts should fit together rationally and not nihilate each other. The Republicans keep complaining about Obama's economic policies and how they will wreck the future lives of our children. In this Future, our children will inherent a ruined economy, they lament, coupled, in the Future, with an Iran that has powerful weapons. In this Futureworld, America will become great again. They worry so vehemently about the life of every single fetus, and yet on this most significant issue,the very future of life on Earth, they show absolutely no concern. They are so clear sighted about the Future, even auguring an apocalyptic world where their guns will be confiscated, but they have nothing to say about a future where the world is flooded and pounded with indominable winds, where Manhattan will be under water and all humanity at risk of extinction. Perhaps their philosophy is consistent, because in this future scramble for food and shelter, they will indeed need their guns.
5
Isn't economics all about productivity? If there are already more workers in the solar industry than in the coal industry, how many will be needed to produce an equivalent amount of electricity when coal is finished? Further, how many wind mills or solar panels must be placed on mountaintops or desert landscapes to make up for the demise of oil-produced energy? How many solar panels does it take to produce the energy equivalent of a gallon of gas? These questions need to be answered before we jump of the fossil fuel cliff. To ignore them is to present false testimony to a gullible audience.
2
I can't answer all of your questions, but I just purchased a 10KW solar system for my house that will produce about 110% of my average annual use. It will pay for itself in about 5 years, and it uses about 50% of my south facing roof, or about 25% of my total roof area. And about the excess 10% capacity, Duke Energy has to buy it back from me.
Who said anything about jumping off the fossil fuel cliff. We transition. What more do you need to see the imperative direction towards renewable energy that the world must eventually take? It's a no brainer and those that don't see this have no brains.
How many hill tops need to be deforested for strip mines? How many aquifers to be ruined by fracking? Cheap oil is false testimony
The political right, like the religious right is antithetical to science. Facts are not comfortable bedfellows with right wing "thought." Even using the word "thought," is counter to right wing theology. One has simply to believe, not question. I am as afraid as I am hopeful that the electorate can pay attention to what you are saying. I have given up on my generation's ability to think and examine the facts. My wild hope is that the new younger generations have a more open minded attitude towards facts, but listening to the younger Republican aspirants it may be a frustrated hope.
7
Paul, other than the last 5 min’s of the 4th qtr, Obama's energy policy has not strayed far from promoting "old energy." Hegemony over Middle East oil is the real reason we’ve been waging aggression in the Muslim world for the last 14 years- including Afghanistan following 9-11 even though for decades it has had porous borders dominated by regional warlords with no effective central gov’t. We bombed civilians that had no control over Al-Qaeda fleeing to the mountains of the country seeking refuge financed by wealthy Saudis and backed by Pakistan’s intelligence agency and military. It is why we have supported Israel economically, militarily and provided diplomatic cover starting with Kissinger. Our sledgehammer foreign policy has always been about maintaining sufficient order to protect U.S. corporate interests no matter how brutal the dictators we support. The consequences to the civilian population are irrelevant. During Clinton’s presidency after the Russians withdrew from Afghanistan, the State Dept supported the Taliban (opposed by the CIA) as nominal ruler fighting opposing insurgencies. That policy was heavily supported by the lobbying efforts of SOCAL hoping to build oil/ gas pipelines across the country. Control of Middle East Oil is not only about U.S. consumption but controlling who may not buy oil (China). Finally, our mighty military machine is wedded to oil which would come to a screeching halt without plentiful access to oil supplies worldwide.
5
This country was the greatest when a super majority of Americans supported creativity, invention and progress.
For the past 30 years we have slipped in international rankings to now be lower than almost all other developed countries on policies and characteristics important to creativity and invention - education, pre-schooling, literacy, child wellbeing, test scores in math and science, internet download speeds, intellectual property protection, freedom of the press (surprised?), gender equality, linguistic diversity, % population foreign born, longevity, health, peacefulness, happiness, etc.
Instead, per capita we rank far and away highest on policies and characteristics that are a drag on progress: income concentration in the hands of a few, defense expenditures, imprisonment, violent crime, energy use, pollution, health care inefficiency, etc.
You get the picture but can find these and more rankings at: https://rankingamerica.wordpress.com/
So, are we going to let a few oil billionaires continue to bribe our politicians and sink this country by promoting social discord, partisanship and paralysis?
The "Greatest Generation", which put the U.S. at the top of most positive rankings, has mostly passed away. It's time for us to step up to the plate and act like a team that wants to win.
For the past 30 years we have slipped in international rankings to now be lower than almost all other developed countries on policies and characteristics important to creativity and invention - education, pre-schooling, literacy, child wellbeing, test scores in math and science, internet download speeds, intellectual property protection, freedom of the press (surprised?), gender equality, linguistic diversity, % population foreign born, longevity, health, peacefulness, happiness, etc.
Instead, per capita we rank far and away highest on policies and characteristics that are a drag on progress: income concentration in the hands of a few, defense expenditures, imprisonment, violent crime, energy use, pollution, health care inefficiency, etc.
You get the picture but can find these and more rankings at: https://rankingamerica.wordpress.com/
So, are we going to let a few oil billionaires continue to bribe our politicians and sink this country by promoting social discord, partisanship and paralysis?
The "Greatest Generation", which put the U.S. at the top of most positive rankings, has mostly passed away. It's time for us to step up to the plate and act like a team that wants to win.
10
Take away taxpayer subsidies and clean energy falls flat on its face. The government going deeply into debt (a debt which Krugman thinks is just wonderful) to finance feel good projects makes no sense to a critical thinker. The liberals love to talk about wind farms as long as they are located somewhere else. Renewable energy creating more jobs than coal - makes sense given Obama's shut down of the coal industry. One thinking poster mentions nuclear energy - unfortunately not part of Obama's non plan. Yes, where is the administrations plan? Modernizing the grid - forget about it. Lets just keep shoveling other peoples money to Obama's friends in the solar panel business. Oh yes, what do they do when the sun goes down, sit in the dark. Want to solve the problems in the Middle East? Produce and export oil - flood the market. It won't take long to get their attention.
1
Actually, the only energy industry that would fall flat on its face without subsidies would be coal.
11
You obviously do not know what renewable energy is and how it works. Here's what you should already know about solar panels. You store the energy from the day into batteries so you have electricity at night. You're staring at the wrongminded political view of the right and not looking at the benefits or renewable energy.
As always when the good Doctor wades into science and engineering he retreats into slogans and received wisdom of the left.
Wind / solar have a massive problem - they are intermittent. Or in the parlance of energy production they are non-dispatchable. Meaning that when they are needed they may or may not be there to meet demand.
Given they are unreliable they need to be backed up by dependable / dispatchable sources (coal / gas / nukes) always at the ready to step in when the clouds appear or the wind stops blowing.
So while mass production reduces their 'cost', their usefulness and ability to power a modern society does not improve.
Wind / solar have a massive problem - they are intermittent. Or in the parlance of energy production they are non-dispatchable. Meaning that when they are needed they may or may not be there to meet demand.
Given they are unreliable they need to be backed up by dependable / dispatchable sources (coal / gas / nukes) always at the ready to step in when the clouds appear or the wind stops blowing.
So while mass production reduces their 'cost', their usefulness and ability to power a modern society does not improve.
1
What is needed is batteries that store energy. Solar and wind provide much more energy than used simply because there is no way to store excess.
7
Approximately 3% of the global electricity demand is in highly-dispatchable storage at any given time. The most common mass storage is pumped reservoirs of water, from which about 85% of the energy is recoverable, but there are other methods too. Try a websearch on "large scale energy storage".
There are projects to take intermittently generated power to pump up more water behind hydroelectric dams, thus converting intermittent sources to non-intermittent.
While coal/gas/petro will probably always have a role, that's no reason to dismiss wind/solar/hydro/thermal. And if the world is going to continue using nuclear, there's a lot of updating that needs to be done to bring plants to more current engineering, not the least of which is safety engineering (as Fukushima Dai-ichi is still proving).
There are projects to take intermittently generated power to pump up more water behind hydroelectric dams, thus converting intermittent sources to non-intermittent.
While coal/gas/petro will probably always have a role, that's no reason to dismiss wind/solar/hydro/thermal. And if the world is going to continue using nuclear, there's a lot of updating that needs to be done to bring plants to more current engineering, not the least of which is safety engineering (as Fukushima Dai-ichi is still proving).
Many are working on the storage problem - chemical batteries, kinetic (fly wheels), fuel cells are all under development.
Thus far, nothing has emerged that can deliver grid scale storage and facilitate conversion of the global 15 trillion watt demand.
Thus far, nothing has emerged that can deliver grid scale storage and facilitate conversion of the global 15 trillion watt demand.
They should convert the keystone pipeline project into a geo thermal project leveraging work done already. These nearly free electricity hubs would provide
copious amounts of locally generated power that can enable materials processing centers for 21 st century technology. And the workforce can comprise of great use of under employed native american, displaced farm hands, and syrian refugees. It solves three problems at once: environmentally power generation, economic development, and work force
utilization.
copious amounts of locally generated power that can enable materials processing centers for 21 st century technology. And the workforce can comprise of great use of under employed native american, displaced farm hands, and syrian refugees. It solves three problems at once: environmentally power generation, economic development, and work force
utilization.
3
Any discussion of energy policy is incomplete without considering nuclear. A single nuclear plant produces more than 1000 square miles of solar panels and many thousands of wind mills. And instead of defacing vast swaths of our landscape with ugly, gigantic propellers, a nuclear plant can fit inside of a few city blocks. Now before detractors mention Fukushima, I should point out that Fukushima only demonstrated how safe nuclear really is: after a massive earthquake and a tsunami, no lives were lost due to the mechanical failure at the plant. Compare this with the dozen lives lost in a single oil platform that defaced thousands of miles of coastline and, by its very design, ensured that millions of tons of CO2 and other byproducts were pumped into the air with every year of operation. Even Germany, the global leader in "renewable" energy had to restart dirty coal plants as a result of their ill-conceived decision to shutter nuclear.
10
Fukushima did not take many lives, but it did have an enormous cost. CO2 is not the only pollutant we should worrry about. That is a lesson everyone should understand based upon the tragedy that Fukushima has been. The long term safety of nuclear power is far from certain, so caution and concern before using it is not foolish policy.
Nuclear power is too expensive. Yes, I'm including the price of the legal battles because that's always part of the price.
In addition to money support of Big Energy, conservatives are Luddites. Remember the screaming about replacing Edison's century old incandescent bulbs with CFLs? It was government " telling me what to buy".
4
Is this the Randy Simmons who wrote the Newsweek hit piece on Wind Power?
See link: http://www.perc.org/staff/randy-simmons .
See link: http://www.perc.org/staff/randy-simmons .
Will the workers in the solar and wind industries vote Democratic? Is there a paradox to be explained there as well?
2
The costs of solar and wind have "dropped" so substantially only because there are so many subsidies in place at every step. China is flooding the market with government subsidized solar panels. The manufacturing sites in the U.S. are usually given 10 years or more property tax breaks. Then there are federal tax credits available for the manufacturer. Then more federal and often state tax credits available to the consumer. Then artificially forced buy-back rates that the local utility has to pay if there is excess power put onto the grid.
2
Sure manufacturing sites for solar energy are given tax breaks, etc. So are foreign automotive manufacturers who build plants here, movie companies, and professional sports teams.
Take a look around you. What is beneficial to the community?
Take a look around you. What is beneficial to the community?
2
Tax breaks given to manufacturing enterprises typically pay back the government through the taxes paid by the people who find jobs in the enterprises that fan into the plant providing machine tools, and materials for manufacturing and the people who earn income from the fan out enterprises that add value to the products produced in the factory. Additionally manufacturing enterprises employ people to work in the factory as well as to develop new products to be made there. Tax breaks for industry can be a good deal for government and the communities servicing the enterprise or benefitting from it.
Banks make profits by lending capital, i.e., investing in businesses, mortgages and other tangible assets. Government makes profits by creating public infrastructure and investing in people, for example, schools. This is Political Econ 101, the course too many Americans today either skipped in school or failed to understand.
Banks make profits by lending capital, i.e., investing in businesses, mortgages and other tangible assets. Government makes profits by creating public infrastructure and investing in people, for example, schools. This is Political Econ 101, the course too many Americans today either skipped in school or failed to understand.
So, R Griffin, what's your real answer. Just keep using fossil fuels until the planet implodes from its own waste and noxious by-products? Keep fracking and drill ("drill, baby, drill") until we're lip-high in petrol pollutants? Keep it up until the oceans rise 10 feet? Until catastrophic hurricanes devastate our southern and eastern coasts? Don't you realize the tax credits, etc. are in place to get us started on an energy revolution?
1
The US runs the best nuclear reactors money can buy . . . if you limit yourself to 1960's technology. Let's decommission all 104 Gen II and Gen III nuclear reactors after we bring 150 Gen III+ reactors online. The GE ESBWR and Westinghouse AP1000 designs represent 50 years of progress in nuclear engineering. Lower construction costs, lower operating costs, Higher up-time, and a 100x safety improvement over existing reactors, whose safety record is already very good. (Any yes, I grew up within 25 miles of the Fermi II Nuclear Reactor).
For my money, I still believe Nuclear is the baseload answer. Wind and solar make sense for remote power and in certain areas of the country, but even achieving 20% of US power will take a a lot more technology. Nuclear power is 21% of the US energy mix and has room to do much more - without CO2 emmisions.
For my money, I still believe Nuclear is the baseload answer. Wind and solar make sense for remote power and in certain areas of the country, but even achieving 20% of US power will take a a lot more technology. Nuclear power is 21% of the US energy mix and has room to do much more - without CO2 emmisions.
5
Paul, conservatives aren't just enemies of the sun, they're actually enemies of humanity.
They talk endlessly of the unborn, but continue to sabotage the actual human future, the future that every child eventually born of earth must face, with one fiscal or environmental scam after another. Their dream for the planet appears to be a world armed to the teeth, with everyone at each other's throat, competing for the last acres of inhabitable land, in a real-life version of "Survivor" - all so nefarious oligarchs and CEOs can continue to reap windfall profits until the last possible moment.
They talk endlessly of the unborn, but continue to sabotage the actual human future, the future that every child eventually born of earth must face, with one fiscal or environmental scam after another. Their dream for the planet appears to be a world armed to the teeth, with everyone at each other's throat, competing for the last acres of inhabitable land, in a real-life version of "Survivor" - all so nefarious oligarchs and CEOs can continue to reap windfall profits until the last possible moment.
15
I'm considering adopting solar voltaic technology because it suits my situation and inclinations. The house I live in was built with tax credits for solar homes from Jimmy Carter's administration and has the right roof for panels now covered in asphalt shingles. A photovoltaic panel generates energy AND shades my sunny roof reducing energy costs to cool it and making it more comfortable in the summer.
The only competing difficulty is that i already conserve and use too little energy on my own. In New York State I can't sell it should I send the surplus to the grid.
So I have been devising ways to use more electricity that I can generate cheaply. I have a greenhouse and could supplement the light in winter and heat it. And then there's charging the battery on an electric car as a possibility. Whatever I do will lessen my dependence on corrupt Petroleum states, ours included.
The only competing difficulty is that i already conserve and use too little energy on my own. In New York State I can't sell it should I send the surplus to the grid.
So I have been devising ways to use more electricity that I can generate cheaply. I have a greenhouse and could supplement the light in winter and heat it. And then there's charging the battery on an electric car as a possibility. Whatever I do will lessen my dependence on corrupt Petroleum states, ours included.
7
You put your finger on the problem, we have no good way of storing renewable energy as yet. But you bring up an important point, shading by roof top panels can save up to 20% energy in the sun belt! At your latitude and with your reduced energy use, you can probably get away with a Tesla battery and a small backup gas generator. Sounds like you can get entirely off the grid, if you want.
1
Thank you Mr. Krugman for this op-ed piece which begins to unravel the entire GOP agenda in which all Republicans are expected to conform to in lock, stock & barrel. While Koch Industries, the 2nd largest Corporation in the US, literally controls the Republican party, they advertise themselves as defenders of free market Capitalism & advocate for a smaller federal government. What they don't state explicitly is that Koch Industries is the largest beneficiary of Corporate Welfare in the form of subsidies from the "paid for" corrupt Congress expecting to receive over 14.35 billion over the next decade. Koch Industries is the largest advertiser of TV adds on all of the Sunday News shows the purport to report unbiased coverage of politics. Koch Industries, while critical of excessive regulation & influence of government over industry, now have their tentacles into the hiring & promotion of University professors. They're funding of Republicans in the 2016 election to the tune of 880 million is a drop in the bucket compared to what they will gain in kickbacks from their political puppets. Republican & gaffe prone Kevin McCarthy is expected to take John Boehner's position as Speaker of the House. He represents the most polluted city in the US, Fresno, CA although blindly & religiously supports dirty fossil fuels which are at the source of the air, ground & water pollution in Fresno. Coincidentally, Koch supported ALEC is behind the boiler plate pro fossil fuel legislation.
10
It'll do precisely zero good. As long as Democrats continue to allow the right to control the conversation and offer no alternative but tinkering and rounding off the sharpest edges of failed conservative ideology on markets, economics, and the extremist reactionary agenda, Democrats and their supporters will continue to lose.
3
How about letting legitimate scientists "control the conversation" regarding the health & well being of our planet. Why would any rational, sane & well educated person trust their children's futures on politicians whose entire careers are financed by Koch Industries whose entire profit making endeaver relies on dirty energy sources? Why would any person with a moral compass & faith based compassion for their fellow man, allow a Corporation to dictate the country's energy policies? Would you allow your children to live in Bakersfield & breathe in the most polluted air in the country or allow your children to play in contaminated water sources or dig in the dirt? No, but you would most certainly no give a hoot about the poor people forced to live in toxic communities across the nation which reflect the level of apathy among the citizenry. This is ot extremist reactionary agenda, rather alternative energies allow for the hope of a clean environment for our children and children's children while also providing alternative jobs to American workers.
1
Renewables aren't just about environmentalism, they're also a major component of energy independence, which has to be a major component of any strategy to stay out of wars in the Middle East, which would help us free up dollars for infrastructure spending, or to help make college more affordable, or for more government R&D grants, or to fully fund NASA, whose share of the budget has been falling for years.
Or, if we end up with a Republican in the White House we won't really follow a strategy, we'll be back to having to follow a "strategery" and, as every good student of "strategery" knows, the only good "strategery" is one where we bomb a random country, send in ground troops, pull down statues, then celebrate with a tax cut pegged at a random number that has nothing to do with the budgeted amounts actually necessary to fully fund the government. Of course, all good "strategeries" make sense when viewed through the lens of "truthiness" which are political communications repeated ad nauseam until average citizens just feel sad and helpless.
Or, if we end up with a Republican in the White House we won't really follow a strategy, we'll be back to having to follow a "strategery" and, as every good student of "strategery" knows, the only good "strategery" is one where we bomb a random country, send in ground troops, pull down statues, then celebrate with a tax cut pegged at a random number that has nothing to do with the budgeted amounts actually necessary to fully fund the government. Of course, all good "strategeries" make sense when viewed through the lens of "truthiness" which are political communications repeated ad nauseam until average citizens just feel sad and helpless.
6
The Cheney legislation, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 prohibits the EPA from regulating fracking, and is now the federal judicial precedent to so prohibit any federal agency. Congress has to repeal this legislation and courts have to act more judiciously to stop disempowering the EPA Plan to shift to renewables.
Jim Hansen's Dreams of My Grandchildren tells how Cheney in 2001 tried to stop shuttering coal.
Jim Hansen's Dreams of My Grandchildren tells how Cheney in 2001 tried to stop shuttering coal.
3
Republicans have an historical amount of political power across the nation. They want a different world. They're getting it. Maybe some day Democrats and their voices in the media will try and figure out why even though the public agrees with Democrats on nearly every issue, Democrats continue to humiliate themselves electorally, why Democrats continue to act as if they're in the Monty Python skit: "Run away! Run away!". I wish I could say I had any confidence that would happen, but the Obama years have convinced me it's not going to happen.
Only raw power impresses the conservative mind that is convinced he's winning. The conservatives are winning. More whining, more reasoning, more analysis, more begging for compromise isn't going to change that. They're winning.
Only raw power impresses the conservative mind that is convinced he's winning. The conservatives are winning. More whining, more reasoning, more analysis, more begging for compromise isn't going to change that. They're winning.
2
Tallow candles to whale oil lamps to coal gas lamps to electricity generated by water and fossil fuels. Why employ fossil photons when we now have the technology to employ them instantaneously? Once coal and oil are gone, several hundred million years is a long time to wait for the next batch.
3
If all that coal and oil are gone it means all that carbon has been released into our atmosphere and the planet will be a giant, uninhabitable heat sink. There will be no one left to wait around for another batch of coal or oil.
I say relax there Paul (can I call you Paul? Heh). Here's the thing not (yet) recognized by those "fossilized" energy conservatives whose wallets are lined by the energy equivalent of the blacksmith industry (back when the auto was a novelty). Conservative Capitalist or Liberal Capitalist. It doesn't matter. When a Capitalist smells the potential to make a buck they are all over the situation, in this case clean/alternative energy, like white on rice. And as can be seen in the energy industry this is occurring (HEH!).
So (to me) it comes to this. (True) Capitalists care less the politics of any of social order....only that the politics supports their self-interests and needs. So what is going on now in the industry, despite the rear-guard action of the entrenched interests, says to me that the entrenched self-serving Capitalist deniers are about to be run over by those other Capitalists who see profit to be had....call it by the only mantra by which Capitalism lives.....creative destruction. They will only gather strength with time and (ever) increasing political influence.
Same as it ever is...just gotta be patient is all.
John~
American Net'Zen
So (to me) it comes to this. (True) Capitalists care less the politics of any of social order....only that the politics supports their self-interests and needs. So what is going on now in the industry, despite the rear-guard action of the entrenched interests, says to me that the entrenched self-serving Capitalist deniers are about to be run over by those other Capitalists who see profit to be had....call it by the only mantra by which Capitalism lives.....creative destruction. They will only gather strength with time and (ever) increasing political influence.
Same as it ever is...just gotta be patient is all.
John~
American Net'Zen
Says Mr. Krugman, "Does anyone remember the Cheney energy task force? Early in the George W. Bush administration, Vice President Dick Cheney released a report that was widely derided as a document written by and for Big Energy — because it was."
Does anyone remember the Affordable Care Act? Early in the Obama administration, both the health care industry and the pharmaceutical companies got in behind the legislation because they saw a government-mandated increase in their customer base. Who says Democrats hate big business?
Does anyone remember the Affordable Care Act? Early in the Obama administration, both the health care industry and the pharmaceutical companies got in behind the legislation because they saw a government-mandated increase in their customer base. Who says Democrats hate big business?
1
The marketing of Apple products and Automobiles should be a lesson for Solar and wind which seriously lacks salesmanship. Government leadership is also lacking. And while the markets are improving, the paid off Republicans are doing everything to sabotage new energy.
If only all you fat people would get away from your televisions and look into the future and teach yourselves, you'd make the move into solar and wind.
Solar panels are now extraordinarily cheap now.
I have about 250 watts of solar panels charging a bank of batteries to power my radios and lights. What I use in solar energy is that much I don't pay for on the electric bill.
Ten years ago I paid 350 dollars for a 50 watt solar panel. Just two years ago, I paid about 100 dollars for another 50 watt panel.
Get it?
If only all you fat people would get away from your televisions and look into the future and teach yourselves, you'd make the move into solar and wind.
Solar panels are now extraordinarily cheap now.
I have about 250 watts of solar panels charging a bank of batteries to power my radios and lights. What I use in solar energy is that much I don't pay for on the electric bill.
Ten years ago I paid 350 dollars for a 50 watt solar panel. Just two years ago, I paid about 100 dollars for another 50 watt panel.
Get it?
180
Was feeling great about alternative energy there for a minute, but then I felt so unbearably patronized I've changed my mind.
Fossils, baby, all the way. Fossils are now so amazing now.
Fossils, baby, all the way. Fossils are now so amazing now.
A few years ago we rented a house in France that we had previously rented 2 years before. In between, the owners, who lived next door, had installed some solar panels for their use, which they also hooked up to the rented house. The difference in our electricity bill between the first and second visit was huge. It did help that this was a very sunny part of France.
1
I sincerely hope you are not going to be a spokesperson for the solar and wind products we so sorely need. Fat people? That sounds like you are trying to convince people to not use environmentally sound energies. Who knows—maybe you are paid by the Kochs.
Yes, it is a simple story. Anti-renewable energy is bought and paid for by Koch brothers and the energy industry. Your corporations buying policy insofar as it can be bought, and with a Republican President and a Republican Congress, they'll own us.
In American democracy, the "people" are peons. Industry is king.
As Phil Green says, "Farewell to democracy in America"
In American democracy, the "people" are peons. Industry is king.
As Phil Green says, "Farewell to democracy in America"
2
The decline of any industry that refuses to innovate deserves the grave it has dug for itself. The Energy industry has had its chance to change the world since the 1970s, when the oil crisis occurred. The lack of investment in solar and wind since those periods has caused renewable energy to lack the efficiency needed to meet our increasing needs. Technology in the small nuclear fusion market is 15 to 20 years behind schedule, and no one is even paying attention to the small projects. The large TOKAMOK is wasting resources. The moment a industry goes stagnant and doesn't invest in innovation, is the same as death. Stop voting republican and you solve the political issues that surround this problem.
4
We, the USA, are now almost alone in our anachronistic laws concerning the ownership of petroleum assets. Back when the first wells were drilled they were extremely shallow, primitive affairs, producing for the owners of the land directly above, a windfall profit. Now the technologies of deep drilling, horizontal drilling, fracking, waste water injection, steam and chemical injection, have changed the game completely. Who really owns that geological formation, thousands of feet down, that can be blasted, squeezed, and pumped? Those lucky guys sitting way up there on that little scab of top-soil?
The international major oil corporations have a long, disgraceful history of national bribery and record profits and now they own all the games everywhere. Their influence has been pernicious throughout recent history, destabilizing the world, buying governments, starting wars and of course, making lots of money.
It is way past time to change the laws and make American petroleum a national asset- not a private one- to change the industry completely and change our point of view from short-sighted, private wealth generation to a shared, productive, public resource, in trust, stressing asset protection and real environmental guardianship.
And yes, this would transform our ability to respond to the very real calamity of global warming.
The international major oil corporations have a long, disgraceful history of national bribery and record profits and now they own all the games everywhere. Their influence has been pernicious throughout recent history, destabilizing the world, buying governments, starting wars and of course, making lots of money.
It is way past time to change the laws and make American petroleum a national asset- not a private one- to change the industry completely and change our point of view from short-sighted, private wealth generation to a shared, productive, public resource, in trust, stressing asset protection and real environmental guardianship.
And yes, this would transform our ability to respond to the very real calamity of global warming.
3
Wind and solar have an intermittency problem that won't go away. Unless we're prepared to enjoy the convenience of electricity only when the sun is shining and wind is blowing alternative energy sources will continue to remain important. Expanding our nuclear energy with new, safer reactors can meet our future energy needs and replace the emissions from fossil fuels without taking up vast areas of land and chopping up birds, but we need to get past the political obstacles and irrational fear of it. More people die or are injured every year installing rooftop solar panels than have died or been injured from US nuclear power systems during its entire sixty-year history.
1
The intermittancy problem is somewhat overstated in general. There are means of storing energy (regardless of how it is generated). Capacity factors (actual generation as opposed to rated capacity) of wind and solar are lower than other forms of energy generation. Combinations of energy storage and widely distributed generation sites largely evens out the intermittancy problem. Recent studies show that renewable energy sources can contribute to baseload capacity with these adaptations.
Thus, while it is a problem for isolated generation sites, it is much less of a problem for a grid.
As to the attributable deaths: true, but the potential for immediate disastrous consequences remain far greater for nuclear than any other energy source. Industrial installations of large surface area photovoltaic solar generation (i.e., large fields of PV) actually have very low morbidity and mortality rates.
Thus, while it is a problem for isolated generation sites, it is much less of a problem for a grid.
As to the attributable deaths: true, but the potential for immediate disastrous consequences remain far greater for nuclear than any other energy source. Industrial installations of large surface area photovoltaic solar generation (i.e., large fields of PV) actually have very low morbidity and mortality rates.
None of the storage solutions you mention are cost-effective and there are significant conversion losses both in the storage and the recovery. Rather than fear mongering with "potential for immediate disastrous consequences" we need to deal with the realities and safety of the new reactor designs such as the ones that use liquid sodium and are automatically and inherently self-limiting and won't melt-down and/or leak radiation even with loss of coolant. Nuclear power generation in the USA has had an outstanding safety and reliability record as have the nuclear reactors on our navy submarines and ships. Certainly wind and solar can contribute to our base load, but it isn't realistic to assert that they can replace our existing power infrastructure. Nuclear power in the USA has a proven safety record, is dependable, does not spew CO2 into the air, contribute to global warming and acid rain and, unlike fusion, is a currently viable solution to replacing fossil-fuel power generation. Without the political, regulatory and emotional obstacles that run up the cost, nuclear power can also be economical.
1
Really - have you ever heard of stored energy? Geeesh - I think nuclear power has shown it's ability to create havoc (at the hands of irresponsible managers and workers, but they exist in any field) - havoc that lasts for generations.
In these as in so many other things, we have what we have because of choices. The struggle over government is who gets to make those choices, and for whose benefit. The obstacles to rebuilding our energy infrastructure so that it's not killing us or the planet are more political than technical or economic.
5
The cost of wind power has dropped 30% the past 5 years? Wow! Of course that is less than the cost of natural gas has dropped, or oil for that matter. Both of which are still abundant and both of which provide the vast majority of our energy needs, now and in the foreseeable future.
A prediction: when liberals stop filing suits to block construction of wind farms we will know wind power is real. Until then it is a footnote in our energy infrastructure.
A prediction: when liberals stop filing suits to block construction of wind farms we will know wind power is real. Until then it is a footnote in our energy infrastructure.
3
Call again when the last of the gas has been extracted. The wind and sun will be waiting.
3
This just reminds me of all the flack that the Republicans generated on new light bulb technologies. I had many Republican friends who went party line and said they would never change their light bulbs. That is until they actually saw that the new bulbs indeed lowered their electric bills and the cooler bulbs are just safer too the touch. I don't get it but Republicans fight every bit of change tooth and nail. Seems like they always want to live in the past. Renewables are a big part of our energy future, to which one day Republicans will come around. They just have to have their temper tantrums first.
79
Yes you are correct, but why so long in addressing this? We've only spent trillions going to war over oil and still are fighting over distribution and control of the dastardly stuff.
7
The defense against big energy is not climate change. Rather it is better articulated in terms of jobs and especially national security.
The Democratic party's war on climate change is a loser. It must untangle the loss of job argument, while hitting the GOP where it hurts: national defense and lowering government spending.
The Democratic party's war on climate change is a loser. It must untangle the loss of job argument, while hitting the GOP where it hurts: national defense and lowering government spending.
3
Good points, John. Even Nixon's Administration understood the potential for blackmail by oil-producing nations due to USA's dependence on ME oil, and it even appears they understood climate impact from burning fossil fuel:
EPA was created, approved, and funded during his presidency.
EPA was created, approved, and funded during his presidency.
Fossil fuel industries are not the only ones holding us back. Politicians are also stuck with the military industrial complex, pharmaceutical companies, NRA and others. Time to be free.
10
Note that the report quoted "Projected Costs of Generating Electricity, 2015 Update," is a joint publication with another OECD agency, the Nuclear Energy Agency. I am one of two lead authors. These are PROJECTED costs for 2020. Hence, the time frame is more than 5 years because in the last edition we did not though member country representatives to assume their own "learning" curves for variable renewables. Further, subsidies are not included. This is all explained in the report. Therefore, ignore the headlines and journalistic interpretations, and read the report before announcing your interpretation of the facts and suggested conclusions. Questions?: [email protected]
3
We can debate and argue this over and over. The solution to these and other problems are to simply go to the polls and vote the people responsible out of office. If the Republicans refuse to govern to the benefit of the citizens of the United State rather than the corporate bosses, vote them into unemployment and let's move on.
17
The far right climate change 'doubters' is a bi-product of the the 60s, 70s, 80, and 90s group of conservative scientific 'experts' created by the smoking industry, the star wars industry, the industrial smoke stack industry, and all the other 'industries' that have polluted our earth in the name of economic development. READ NAOMI ORESKES BOOK "Merchants of Doubt". There in lies the entire game plan for the modern industrial fight against scientific reality of global warming, green house gas issues, an on and on and on! The key to all these conservative arguments is , "Lets create doubt about what constitutes expert consensus" The right has repeated found huge financial support through their conservative agenda supporters in whatever industry in the cross hairs of the future (coal, cigarettes, smoke stacks, CFCs) as well as that lone 'expert voice' who they believe creates doubt of what is otherwise clearly expert consensus against these environmentally damaging issues! Then the prior republican administrations, Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Bush, quietly infiltrate the political process and landscape at all levels of the political and administrative rule creating process with their 'doubt creators' in order to generate the appearance of the lack of scientific consensus when in fact 9999 out of 10000 scientist believe otherwise. Where do you think the SCOTUS found the 'economic cost benefit analysis' from in last term's EPA ruling case??? This is the face of big business!
16
Allowing a positive comment such as: "But here’s the thing: by the standards of today’s Republican Party, the Cheney report was enlightened, even left-leaning. One whole chapter was devoted to conservation, another to renewable energy." Soon you will be "fair and balanced:!
2
I must be confused: I thought conservatives were supposed to conserve. If that is so, please tell me what it is that they think they're conserving.
I told you: I must be confused.
I told you: I must be confused.
7
Conserving their wealth and power - that's what it all comes down to. If they could charge for the sun shining or the wind blowing, renewables would be mandatory.
1
The Kochs' money ....
"As a result, renewables account for essentially all recent growth in electricity generation capacity in advanced countries."
Krugman is correct that almost all the recent growth has been from renewables. But that growth has very little to do with economics and everything to do with misguided energy policy. The growth has come from state mandates requiring utilities to add a certain amount of wind and solar and obscene federal subsidies, without which those Stone Age technologies would never work.
Let's cut the subsidies today and see how much wind and solar get installed. (Whatever subsidies exist for oil and gas have very little impact on whether those sources get produced)
The fact is that solar and wind still are much more expensive than natural gas power. Why doesn't Krugman provide data on relative cost? Why doesn't he say the impact on consumer electricity bills!
As much as he purports to be about The data, it is only so when it aligns with his narrative
Krugman is correct that almost all the recent growth has been from renewables. But that growth has very little to do with economics and everything to do with misguided energy policy. The growth has come from state mandates requiring utilities to add a certain amount of wind and solar and obscene federal subsidies, without which those Stone Age technologies would never work.
Let's cut the subsidies today and see how much wind and solar get installed. (Whatever subsidies exist for oil and gas have very little impact on whether those sources get produced)
The fact is that solar and wind still are much more expensive than natural gas power. Why doesn't Krugman provide data on relative cost? Why doesn't he say the impact on consumer electricity bills!
As much as he purports to be about The data, it is only so when it aligns with his narrative
3
Better go back and check the costs over a ten-year period. Solar and wind are vastly cheaper than oil or natural gas once the initial costs have been amortized. Fossil fuels are for fossilized minds.
Corporations and "Big Money" are greedy but not stupid. Almost certainly these same interests already have some stake in renewables and are conducting research to aggressively move into renewables markets. They have no loyalty to the people in the fossil fuels industry and care relatively little about sunk infrastructure costs. Those costs will likely be recouped anyway with the help of their compliant congressional "friends" and care and assistance costs for fossil fuel workers will become the responsibility of the much-maligned government programs at public expense. Always follow the money, present and potential.
5
Coal mining companies gave 97% of their contributions to Republicans and Republicans support carbon energy. All the coal companies need to do is give 50/50 or even 80/20 to Democrats and we would be in a second "Coal Revolution"
1
If coal companies started to give Dems 50-80% of their contributions, the GOP would have a sudden epiphany of the viability of wind and solar energy.
1
Until we run out of coal, oil and gas and your descendants are left to wait 200 million years for new fossil fuels to turn on their lights and their refrigerator.
"and don’t forget that oil and gas have long been subsidized by the tax code"
That's not the half of it. They still get huge invisible subsidies. They are permitted to pollute at certain levels to contain costs. Solar, wind, etc. power systems start out orders of magnitude cleaner but receive no subsidies to account for this great fossil fuel advantage. Essentially we subsidize coal, oil, and gas fired electrical power with our lungs.
lff
That's not the half of it. They still get huge invisible subsidies. They are permitted to pollute at certain levels to contain costs. Solar, wind, etc. power systems start out orders of magnitude cleaner but receive no subsidies to account for this great fossil fuel advantage. Essentially we subsidize coal, oil, and gas fired electrical power with our lungs.
lff
23
Republicans have become lobbyists for corporations. Why will they not lobby for solar and wind energy production corporations? Oil and gas will not last forever, why not support solar and wind, that is where the money of the future is?
5
You are talking about conservatism as though it were a rational, fact-based philosophy.
They're alive and in office now, not in 20 years.
The money of the future lies in renewables, but the lives of the politicians lie in the present. Why should they sacrifice their campaign funds and their political prospects in the interests of a future they will never experience?
2
To some the dangerous outcomes of global warming are a call to communal action at a global level. But, in my view the US Right sees it as a as a need to circle the wagons, and employ US economic and military power, and geographical advantages, to survive and prosper in spite of global warming's harm. And within the US, the Right's "survive and prosper" metric will be based on the comfort level of the well-to-do, a very small percentage of the population.
10
Renewable energy is no big industry,
but thousands of small entrepreneur,
farmers can build a biogas-plant,
towns can establish a small windfarm,
every household can have solar-panels,
and companies like Tesla are growing fast in home batteries
( http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/14/business/international/with-tesla-ente... )
But there are some things that republicans and big petro doesn't like.
(1) it needs a powerful government to provide a grid, which enables a free and fair market.
(2) it is definitely liberal, you even will have energy-traders like the EEX ( https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Energy_Exchange ), there seems nothing like that in the US.
The problem is not the just the sun. The problem is, that the sun shines for everyone, and that is something the gilded class can't stand.
but thousands of small entrepreneur,
farmers can build a biogas-plant,
towns can establish a small windfarm,
every household can have solar-panels,
and companies like Tesla are growing fast in home batteries
( http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/14/business/international/with-tesla-ente... )
But there are some things that republicans and big petro doesn't like.
(1) it needs a powerful government to provide a grid, which enables a free and fair market.
(2) it is definitely liberal, you even will have energy-traders like the EEX ( https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Energy_Exchange ), there seems nothing like that in the US.
The problem is not the just the sun. The problem is, that the sun shines for everyone, and that is something the gilded class can't stand.
108
"The problem is, that the sun shines for everyone...."
Repeat that line over and over!
You've nailed it.
It isn't only that I can help preserve the planet.... or fight climate change.... by having a solar panel, I can make an investment which will actually yield financial returns to me.
Wow!
"The sun shines for everyone!"
Repeat that line over and over!
You've nailed it.
It isn't only that I can help preserve the planet.... or fight climate change.... by having a solar panel, I can make an investment which will actually yield financial returns to me.
Wow!
"The sun shines for everyone!"
1
@ Mathias Weltz - Mathias I really like that comment because it reminds me of the contrast between what I saw up in northern Vermont, dairy farm country, and propane-fired home heating country and what I can see across the street here in Linköping and then across the plains (slätten) and cow country north of me along Götakanale.
In Vermont good Ground Source at two colleges but hardly any wind turbines or solar panels except for a big installation in Vergennes. Saw only two heat pumps - I think - at an energy company in Hyde Park.
Here across the street the apartment complex just got complete solar panel coverage on the traditional tile roof. From Ljungsbro west to Ödeshög large wind turbines often in pairs next to each dairy farm, and very impressive solar arrays on long barns that maybe are 100 years old. Air-air and air-water heat exchangers very common I think as supplements to the fjärrvärme system.
I do not really understand my fellow Americans' reluctance since an awful lot of them in northern Vermont live in homes that speak "we have money, we do not have to buy the cheapest fracked NG available"
Larry
In Vermont good Ground Source at two colleges but hardly any wind turbines or solar panels except for a big installation in Vergennes. Saw only two heat pumps - I think - at an energy company in Hyde Park.
Here across the street the apartment complex just got complete solar panel coverage on the traditional tile roof. From Ljungsbro west to Ödeshög large wind turbines often in pairs next to each dairy farm, and very impressive solar arrays on long barns that maybe are 100 years old. Air-air and air-water heat exchangers very common I think as supplements to the fjärrvärme system.
I do not really understand my fellow Americans' reluctance since an awful lot of them in northern Vermont live in homes that speak "we have money, we do not have to buy the cheapest fracked NG available"
Larry
I am not a Big Oil business man, but if I were I might loudly advocate for coal and fracking to maximize profits on major prior investments. At the same time, I might quietly be investing in wind, solar etc. for the future. Any evidence that this is happening? (Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!)
1
KRUGMAN: "Employment in the solar industry alone now exceeds the number of coal miners, and solar is adding jobs even as coal declines."
Thanks, PK, for the reference to document this statement. Very interesting, considering the numbers of employees that once worked in the coal industry. Before mechanization of the mines, the numbers were in the hundreds of thousands, and many of those were very good-paying jobs, thanks to the legendary John L. Lewis and the wage agreements he negotiated for the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA); and Lewis also took care of the widows and orphans and retirees in these contracts.
Although change is obviously coming, I have minimal sympathy with the coal mining executives but a great deal of sympathy for the employees in the coal mining industry and their families and the retirees that have depended on the industry to fund their benefit and pension plans.
Hope all these folks are not forgotten as the nation transitions to other sources of energy
Thanks, PK, for the reference to document this statement. Very interesting, considering the numbers of employees that once worked in the coal industry. Before mechanization of the mines, the numbers were in the hundreds of thousands, and many of those were very good-paying jobs, thanks to the legendary John L. Lewis and the wage agreements he negotiated for the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA); and Lewis also took care of the widows and orphans and retirees in these contracts.
Although change is obviously coming, I have minimal sympathy with the coal mining executives but a great deal of sympathy for the employees in the coal mining industry and their families and the retirees that have depended on the industry to fund their benefit and pension plans.
Hope all these folks are not forgotten as the nation transitions to other sources of energy
10
They are already forgotten, especially by lefty liberals who weep tears of sympathy, but only for other people -- never their fellow American citizens.
The one comment above about mechanization may be a little misleading. Actually, the employment in the coal industry remained fairly substantial (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_and_jobs_in_the_United_States#... after the mines became fully mechanized in the 1940s and 1950s, and John L. Lewis supported that transition to mechanization, considering it inevitable.
It is an interesting policy for growth that counts on continuing the extraction industry of limited carbon resources and ceding the growth industry of renewables to other nations.
Our politicians, and the people who elect them, have no vision. Does anyone think about a future that is farther out than the 90 day investment and reporting cycle?
Our politicians, and the people who elect them, have no vision. Does anyone think about a future that is farther out than the 90 day investment and reporting cycle?
10
Everyone should read Naomi Klein "This Changes Everything". It really puts what Prof Krugman touches on here in a perspective that is almost an expansion of all thought on the subject of Climate Change and Big Business.
5
These Republican traitors let China win the energy race.
7
That's simply because they didn't see it as a race. The Chinese have a much more pragmatic attitude, not being governed by an Old Energy Oligarchy as the US is.
3
Thanks, Paul.... but is it rude to mention that this shift toward non-fossil fuel based energy should have happened a couple of decades ago?
But then only 'the hippies' and a few scientists were calling for it and they quickly were marginalized.
Much damage has been done over the past too decades. It's very late in the game. No time for high fives. There is much more work to be done, and it must be done NOW.
Conserve and convert.
But then only 'the hippies' and a few scientists were calling for it and they quickly were marginalized.
Much damage has been done over the past too decades. It's very late in the game. No time for high fives. There is much more work to be done, and it must be done NOW.
Conserve and convert.
11
Once the green reaches critical mass--as measured by having the resources to outbid oilmen for politicians--we will see all candidates get on board.
5
The only "deniers" regarding climate are those who believed the "Global Warming" hysteria over the temp increase from 1979-1999, yet deny that the same or better calculations run on the same or better data sources from 1999 thru today have demonstrated a "Global Warming Pause" or "Decline". The Global Average Temperature - the magical distillation of a variety of temperature values taken from a wide range of sources every day of the year - has trended flat or even downward since 1999. But the True Deniers refuse to accept that. Even though they changed their cause from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" in part because "warming" wasn't happening anymore, even though we've added more CO2 to the atmosphere in the last 16 years than in the previous 20.
Here's a question Dr Krugman fails to ask: Why do "alternative" energy industries require the US government to subsidize them? That skews how "cheap" they are, yet Dr Krugman refuses to point out that solar, wind, geothermal, and hydro power have all had massive subsidies from taxpayers over the last 40 years. At its inception, oil did not require such subsidies.
Here's a question Dr Krugman fails to ask: Why do "alternative" energy industries require the US government to subsidize them? That skews how "cheap" they are, yet Dr Krugman refuses to point out that solar, wind, geothermal, and hydro power have all had massive subsidies from taxpayers over the last 40 years. At its inception, oil did not require such subsidies.
5
Why does "Big Oil" need ANY subsidization now?
12
You discount the free land and mining rights that the oil and coal industry have enjoyed forever in America, and the huge right-offs those companies have always taken for exploration? No government support? hogwash.
5
@Limestone: They don't, and don't deserve any. But Dr Krugman doesn't suggest that alternative energy industries should NOT be subsidized.
If you want a great read about energy sources and their history, read Alex Epstein's "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels".
If you want a great read about energy sources and their history, read Alex Epstein's "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels".
1
I think solar and wind will continue to grow rapidly, but I also think that humans will "burn it all" -- every molecule of hydrocarbons we can get our drills on.
I say this for at least three reasons. (1) Continued spectacular growth in human overpopulation of the planet. (2) Human greed and its ability to capture leadership in many different political systems. (3) In the United States, our determination to self-destruct, voting against the country's self-interest to benefit a few super-rich, short-term thinkers like the Kochs.
I say this for at least three reasons. (1) Continued spectacular growth in human overpopulation of the planet. (2) Human greed and its ability to capture leadership in many different political systems. (3) In the United States, our determination to self-destruct, voting against the country's self-interest to benefit a few super-rich, short-term thinkers like the Kochs.
7
I guess free market fundamentalism isn't really about staying competitive after all, is it?
7
The oil and coal supporters of today remind me of the people who used to go around saying that cigarettes weren't hazardous to your health. many in the "pro life" Republican party are decidedly pro death in every other way.
10
Is this anything like the executives and staffs of the most extreme among the environmental excessives helping the EPA draft regulations? No? Of course not, the Cheney task force was nothing more than a cabal to use the environment like a barnyard animal merely to serve mammon, while the EPA was only using the holy resources a secular Goddd had provided to do His green work.
Glad we got THAT straightened out.
But it would take Paul to argue the merits of renewable energy sources just when oil is bottoming out. You’d think he’d stash this column until the inevitable petroleum cycle turns again and we’re paying almost twice what we’re now paying for gas. But noooo.
So … let’s REALLY look at employment. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of Americans directly employed by oil, gas and coal companies and in direct support or supply of their products, is just over 2 million as of the end of May 2014 (go look it up). Also according the Bureau, there are about 200,000 jobs in the U.S. provided by the solar and wind energy sectors, Paul’s focus. The average professional salary of employees of fossil fuel generation ranges from $71,709 to $120,000, depending on job classification (according to Payscale, a research organization). Renewable energy employees average between $36,746 and $77,317 (also according to Payscale).
Why is it surprising that Republicans are protective of fossil fuels for now? How many votes do you think will REALLY turn on all this?
Glad we got THAT straightened out.
But it would take Paul to argue the merits of renewable energy sources just when oil is bottoming out. You’d think he’d stash this column until the inevitable petroleum cycle turns again and we’re paying almost twice what we’re now paying for gas. But noooo.
So … let’s REALLY look at employment. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of Americans directly employed by oil, gas and coal companies and in direct support or supply of their products, is just over 2 million as of the end of May 2014 (go look it up). Also according the Bureau, there are about 200,000 jobs in the U.S. provided by the solar and wind energy sectors, Paul’s focus. The average professional salary of employees of fossil fuel generation ranges from $71,709 to $120,000, depending on job classification (according to Payscale, a research organization). Renewable energy employees average between $36,746 and $77,317 (also according to Payscale).
Why is it surprising that Republicans are protective of fossil fuels for now? How many votes do you think will REALLY turn on all this?
1
Not surprising. The current crop speak about Reagan in godly terms. I remember that when Reagan entered the Whitehouse, he removed the solar panels Jimmy Carter installed.
The market seems to go down with the price of oil. Again, not surprising given the Republican mantra of "Drill baby drill". Then they fake astonishment when oil prices conform to the "Free Market" law of supply and demand.
They fool you by walking upright.
The market seems to go down with the price of oil. Again, not surprising given the Republican mantra of "Drill baby drill". Then they fake astonishment when oil prices conform to the "Free Market" law of supply and demand.
They fool you by walking upright.
15
Going back to the 1990's during the reign of Democrats, the price of oil was dirt cheap and the American economy expanded.
When George W. Bush became President, the price of oil was still low but started a rise in 2003 that continued up to July 2007 when the price of Crude reached a startling 147 dollars a barrel (42 gallons). Within just a few months during the fourth quarter, came the great recession in which the Standard and Poors Retail index indicated a 25 percent decline in consumer spending.
Following that period in late 2007, millions of jobs were lost along with people's homes to foreclosure.
Within a year or two, the price of oil declined drastically because of less demand brought on by those who no longer had to commute or no longer had money. This is the point at which the current crop of Republicans deceitfully refer to as the low price of oil. Following 2008 and 2009, the economy began to recover and crude increased to a high of over 100 dollars per barrel just a few years ago.
Then a genius invented "Fracking" which led to increased production and half price of oil we now enjoy. It can't go lower really.
I noticed that the price of oil coincidentally declined just months before the last Congressional elections. Indeed, either the oil industry is political or there was a great coincidence.
I can guess a Republican will win the next Presidential election at which time the oil production will be cut back and prices will rise.
Exporting crude? Same thing!
When George W. Bush became President, the price of oil was still low but started a rise in 2003 that continued up to July 2007 when the price of Crude reached a startling 147 dollars a barrel (42 gallons). Within just a few months during the fourth quarter, came the great recession in which the Standard and Poors Retail index indicated a 25 percent decline in consumer spending.
Following that period in late 2007, millions of jobs were lost along with people's homes to foreclosure.
Within a year or two, the price of oil declined drastically because of less demand brought on by those who no longer had to commute or no longer had money. This is the point at which the current crop of Republicans deceitfully refer to as the low price of oil. Following 2008 and 2009, the economy began to recover and crude increased to a high of over 100 dollars per barrel just a few years ago.
Then a genius invented "Fracking" which led to increased production and half price of oil we now enjoy. It can't go lower really.
I noticed that the price of oil coincidentally declined just months before the last Congressional elections. Indeed, either the oil industry is political or there was a great coincidence.
I can guess a Republican will win the next Presidential election at which time the oil production will be cut back and prices will rise.
Exporting crude? Same thing!
4
Our nation has been a nation of special interests since its founding, when the South was not willing to give up its plantation livelihood. That has not changed. What has changed is the willingness to compromise. If our founders had the same no-compromise attitude of the far Right, we would not have a great nation. We would be the EU on steroids. Perhaps we already are.
7
Partisan politics is soiling America's progress: the corporate dinosaurs are incapable of change, blind to new directions, and ill equipped to innovate. So deeply tied to the sweet spot of crude as wealth, they see only wealth, not energy. They are completely out of touch with crude and coal's limits, their destruction of the atmosphere, the physical devastation from drilling, mining and spills--and fossil fuel consumption. Yet these same corporate and political dinosaurs--one company spent $7 billion drilling for naught--will tell us govt debt and regulation is the problem and social security is bankrupt and broken. Wealth and its illusions insulate them from the magnitude of their own problems, which loom larger each day.
The transmission of energy is no longer able to up shift. It's stuck and it's gears are stripped. Every barrel of oil is stamped with denial. No policy exist except the balance sheet.
It must be hard to be wealthy and face the reality that the system and model of success is broken. Corporations and politicians don't deal well with their own internal contradictions, preferring to barricade themselves behind the past and forsake the future. They ignore the old adage: the bigger (and more stupid!) they come, the harder they fall.
The transmission of energy is no longer able to up shift. It's stuck and it's gears are stripped. Every barrel of oil is stamped with denial. No policy exist except the balance sheet.
It must be hard to be wealthy and face the reality that the system and model of success is broken. Corporations and politicians don't deal well with their own internal contradictions, preferring to barricade themselves behind the past and forsake the future. They ignore the old adage: the bigger (and more stupid!) they come, the harder they fall.
13
Cheap abundant energy from fossil fuels is directly responsible for lifting billions in the developing world out of poverty. Until alternative sources of energy become cheaper and easy to obtain, fossil fuels are the only option. They are not the enemy.
5
Is this a platitude in the global warming catechism? Try this in Beijing where masks are necessary.
4
While Mr. Krugman is right on most of his points about how solar & wind energy is becoming more competitive, he does overlook one source of renewable energy; the conversion of municipal solid waste to energy. As a rule of thumb, each ton of municipal solid waste has the energy equivalent of a barrel of petroleum and this potential energy can be converted to electricity by incinerating the waste & using the heat released to generate power. Instead of burring the equivalent of thousands of barrels of oil in the ground in landfills, it would be far more efficient to use this potential energy to replace a sizable portion of fossil fuel. And yes, technology is at play here too – today's waste to energy plants emit almost zero pollutants.
In most of the countries of Northern Europe well over 50% of municipal garbage is converted to energy since in many countries there land for landfills is indeed scarce.
We do some WtE in the US and indeed some of NYC’s prodigious production of waste goes to such plants, but we could certainly do much more. Sure, separate the few components of this waste that pay to recycle, but burn the rest as a fuel to generate the energy that we need. By the way, plastics are the best fuel of all!
In most of the countries of Northern Europe well over 50% of municipal garbage is converted to energy since in many countries there land for landfills is indeed scarce.
We do some WtE in the US and indeed some of NYC’s prodigious production of waste goes to such plants, but we could certainly do much more. Sure, separate the few components of this waste that pay to recycle, but burn the rest as a fuel to generate the energy that we need. By the way, plastics are the best fuel of all!
19
When did Republicans start hating the environment ?
When Republican propaganda think tanks starting telling Republican voters to start hating the environment and pledge allegiance to Grand Old Pollution - that's when.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/08/republicans-environment-h...
On July 9, 1970, Republican President Richard Nixon announced to Congress his plans to create the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
By the end of 1970, both agencies were a reality - a great moment in American history.
But what happened to the GOP from 1970 to the present ?
According to a study in the journal Social Science Research, the change began in 1991—when the Soviet Union fell.
"The conservative movement replaced the 'Red Scare' with a new 'Green Scare' and became increasingly hostile to environmental protection at that time," says sociologist Aaron McCright of Michigan State University.
As environmentalism become an increasingly global movement, conservatives tarred it with the label "socialism"...and never mind those melting glaciers, rising sea levels, record droughts and scientific evidence of global toasting...."Drill, baby, drill !"
Guess who was the favorite to be Mitt Romney's Energy Secretary or Chief of Staff had Mittens won in 2012 ??
Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute.
Grand Old Pollution
Greed Over People
Conservatives Against Conservation
GOP 2015
When Republican propaganda think tanks starting telling Republican voters to start hating the environment and pledge allegiance to Grand Old Pollution - that's when.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/08/republicans-environment-h...
On July 9, 1970, Republican President Richard Nixon announced to Congress his plans to create the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
By the end of 1970, both agencies were a reality - a great moment in American history.
But what happened to the GOP from 1970 to the present ?
According to a study in the journal Social Science Research, the change began in 1991—when the Soviet Union fell.
"The conservative movement replaced the 'Red Scare' with a new 'Green Scare' and became increasingly hostile to environmental protection at that time," says sociologist Aaron McCright of Michigan State University.
As environmentalism become an increasingly global movement, conservatives tarred it with the label "socialism"...and never mind those melting glaciers, rising sea levels, record droughts and scientific evidence of global toasting...."Drill, baby, drill !"
Guess who was the favorite to be Mitt Romney's Energy Secretary or Chief of Staff had Mittens won in 2012 ??
Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute.
Grand Old Pollution
Greed Over People
Conservatives Against Conservation
GOP 2015
594
The American right may, or may not, hate the environment; I don't know. But much of the right's resistance to EPA is based on their resistance to the regulations and costs that have accompanied the attempt to clean up the environment and keep it clean.
Who can forget Republican Presidential Clown Rick Santorum saying: "God gave us the earth, and we can do anything we want to with it"
3
I see a lot of this as deriving from our decision that human beings are somehow separate from and better than other species and should be put in charge of our the ecosystem. We see it in some religions, but I'm going to guess that it predates the texts and religions we know. And we see it in sectors that postdate those texts, such as in science and industry and technology. We know better is just a short step away from exploitation, it seems to me. People of some political parties may decry some of the damage we do, but I don't, for example, hear many people in any party wanting to stop to producing the junk that we then throw away and pollute the earth with as long-term garbage. Appliances have, during my lifetime, become throw-away items, for example, not something we repair. We pollute more as a consequence and we have eliminated jobs for people with a talent for repair. So I don't see us headed in a helpful direction, I think we are too focused on short-term pleasure, convenience, and profit.
3
Wind power has become unstoppable doubling every 3 to 4 years: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/Wind_generation-with...
These numbers have outperformed ALL "expert" predictions.
The dirty fossil fuel Koch hired hands of misinformation blame politician that recently 26 coal companies went bankrupt and 264 mines closed. If only they could elect a Bush, a Walker, or a Rubio (all give us coal or die types) coal can be resurrect.
The value of coal however is fast turning into ashes before mining it. At this rate it will soon be less valuable than flint that had its economic heyday during the stone ages. It is market forces that have blown the life out of dirty coal, not Obama or other politicians.
It is not just global climate change that increasingly devastates human life as "once in a thousand years" events have become more frequent. Also:
- NOx & SO2 (that causes acid rain and acid breathing) are responsible for lifelong asthma in children.
- Mercury released from burning coal is a neurotoxin.
- Volatile organic compounds & particulates cause cancer & heart disease.
The true cost of electricity is not just what we pay to utilities but also to hospitals, doctors, and pharmacies.
Coal is bad for birds:
- Respiratory disease destroys bird lungs.
- Mercury poisoning makes birds fidgety for roosting on eggs long enough to hatch.
- Acid rain devastates agriculture but also kills snails critical for songbird diet. Soft eggs do not hatch.
These numbers have outperformed ALL "expert" predictions.
The dirty fossil fuel Koch hired hands of misinformation blame politician that recently 26 coal companies went bankrupt and 264 mines closed. If only they could elect a Bush, a Walker, or a Rubio (all give us coal or die types) coal can be resurrect.
The value of coal however is fast turning into ashes before mining it. At this rate it will soon be less valuable than flint that had its economic heyday during the stone ages. It is market forces that have blown the life out of dirty coal, not Obama or other politicians.
It is not just global climate change that increasingly devastates human life as "once in a thousand years" events have become more frequent. Also:
- NOx & SO2 (that causes acid rain and acid breathing) are responsible for lifelong asthma in children.
- Mercury released from burning coal is a neurotoxin.
- Volatile organic compounds & particulates cause cancer & heart disease.
The true cost of electricity is not just what we pay to utilities but also to hospitals, doctors, and pharmacies.
Coal is bad for birds:
- Respiratory disease destroys bird lungs.
- Mercury poisoning makes birds fidgety for roosting on eggs long enough to hatch.
- Acid rain devastates agriculture but also kills snails critical for songbird diet. Soft eggs do not hatch.
13
Perpetual economic growth, with perpetual population growth, and burn-the-last-molecule-of-fossil-carbon mentality, along with resistance to novel thought & priorities, compounded by human greed and ignorance, leads me to believe that we are in for some major dramas.
To remain sanguine about this, one would have to believe there is some place off-planet, ruled by an omnipotent father-figure, where resources are not an issue.
To remain sanguine about this, one would have to believe there is some place off-planet, ruled by an omnipotent father-figure, where resources are not an issue.
7
It's fitting that the dinosaurs of the political right are so deeply invested - financially and emotionally - in fossil fuels. However, theirs is a losing cause that is destined for extinction. We're well into a new millennium, and we're turning the page on the past and about to move into a new chapter in energy use. Just as the space-age fantasies of a decade ago are now the ubiquitous, pedestrian devices we use daily, so too will our energy sources soon look much different than what we use today. Oil, gas and coal are so 20th century...and so are fossil fuel apologists.
9
Oil and gas are so outdated.
How do you heat and air condition your home?
How do you fuel your automobile?
Yeah, I thought so.
How do you heat and air condition your home?
How do you fuel your automobile?
Yeah, I thought so.
1
The current energy infrastructure was designed around fossil fuels, so the migration to renewables won't happen overnight. However, it will happen. Indeed, it has already begun - much of the electrical power in my Houston, Texas home comes from wind - and the speed at which we make this migration will accelerate when we elect leaders who are not so firmly ingrained in the past.
Because most of the country still relies on fossil fuels for some or all of its energy use does not mean that fossil fuels are not the energy sources of the past. And had leaders within the fossil fuel industry been more willing to publicly acknowledge and address some of the issues caused by fossil fuels, there would be less enmity felt toward the oil and gas industry. Unfortunately, oil and gas executives deliberately obfuscated the facts at every turn, despite the overwhelming evidence presented by the scientific community.
Climate change is no longer an issue that is open for debate, nor is the fact that the burning of fossil fuels has played a major role - the major role - in bringing it about. The sooner we get off fossil fuels, the better.
Because most of the country still relies on fossil fuels for some or all of its energy use does not mean that fossil fuels are not the energy sources of the past. And had leaders within the fossil fuel industry been more willing to publicly acknowledge and address some of the issues caused by fossil fuels, there would be less enmity felt toward the oil and gas industry. Unfortunately, oil and gas executives deliberately obfuscated the facts at every turn, despite the overwhelming evidence presented by the scientific community.
Climate change is no longer an issue that is open for debate, nor is the fact that the burning of fossil fuels has played a major role - the major role - in bringing it about. The sooner we get off fossil fuels, the better.
Take away all the tax credits and subsidies, and what do you have? A 50 year old technology that isn't viable. In addition wind and solar only addresses half the equation, it's not mobile. Dr. Krugman and the rest of the extremists only see an opportunity to bash the conservatives. And by glancing through the comments section, it becomes apparent. Open your eyes, take a look around. Many countries in Europe have advanced beyond the solar and wind fantasy to localized waste to energy.
1
"Fossil fuel subsidies reached $90 billion in the OECD and over $500 billion globally in 2011.[1] Renewable energy subsidies reached $88 billion in 2011." The fossil fuel industry has free security provided by the DOD as a subsidy that is unaccounted for.
Renewable energy in the form of liquid highly dense Hydrogen is underproduction now. Fuel cell vehicles are in production and being sold now by many major auto companies most notably Toyota and Honda. Decentralized electrical generation using fuel cells is also in production.
Localized waste? Do we really want to promote waste or burn waste? Solar, wind, and water are replacing fossil fuels throughout the EU. Like Universal healthcare, fossil fuel proponents routinely fabricate narratives that handicap America.
Renewable energy in the form of liquid highly dense Hydrogen is underproduction now. Fuel cell vehicles are in production and being sold now by many major auto companies most notably Toyota and Honda. Decentralized electrical generation using fuel cells is also in production.
Localized waste? Do we really want to promote waste or burn waste? Solar, wind, and water are replacing fossil fuels throughout the EU. Like Universal healthcare, fossil fuel proponents routinely fabricate narratives that handicap America.
1
It is surprising what got left out of this. Just take petroleum for a moment. Geologists say that there was 2.5 trillion barrels of oil in the ground in 1868 when we started pumping it out at Titusville, PA. Petroleum was seen as the replacement for whale oil because we were killing the leviathans at a prodigious and unsustainable rate. Since that time we have become completely dependent on fossil fuels and we have burned about 1.5 trillion of those barrels of oil. The residue is in the air right now. Do some math, at a rate of 80 million bbls per day, how long does the remaining trillion bbls last?? And by the way, much of that remaining oil is under oceans where it can cost $100 million just to drill a well. What does that do to the cost of oil? The oil industry wants to maximize its investment in pipelines, refineries and other infrastructure and doesn't care about the bigger issues of running out. Even whalers back in the day had more common sense.
8
Excellent and accurate column. There are numerous reasons to embrace renewable energy:
--Economic efficiency. Renewables reduce business and building operating costs over the long run. Renewables bolster the competitiveness of the U.S. Economy.
--Job creation. Building integrated renewables, especially, need to be installed, producing construction jobs.
--Resilience. Renewables frequently produce power at the building level or at the microgrid level, providing a decentralized backup option to the nation's aging and increasingly unreliable electric grid.
--Energy independence and security. Renewables add to our arsenal of domestically generated fuels and are not depletable.
--Environmental benefits. The use of renewables reduces greenhouse gas emissions.
Can fossil fuel use be phased out immediately? Of course not. But increasing the use of renewable fuels offers numerous economic benefits, as well as geopolitical and environmental ones. Diversifying our energy base should be a bipartisan policy objective.
--Economic efficiency. Renewables reduce business and building operating costs over the long run. Renewables bolster the competitiveness of the U.S. Economy.
--Job creation. Building integrated renewables, especially, need to be installed, producing construction jobs.
--Resilience. Renewables frequently produce power at the building level or at the microgrid level, providing a decentralized backup option to the nation's aging and increasingly unreliable electric grid.
--Energy independence and security. Renewables add to our arsenal of domestically generated fuels and are not depletable.
--Environmental benefits. The use of renewables reduces greenhouse gas emissions.
Can fossil fuel use be phased out immediately? Of course not. But increasing the use of renewable fuels offers numerous economic benefits, as well as geopolitical and environmental ones. Diversifying our energy base should be a bipartisan policy objective.
10
Anetliner Netliner: then explain why the "greenest" countries have low or no economic growth over the last 5 years. I'm looking at countries like Finland, Sweden, Austria, Germany, UK, Latvia, Ireland, and Denmark. Their average unemployment was 8% at the end of 2014. Meh. I think you're confused on job creation.
This is the only sentence anyone has to read in your column today:
"Earlier this year Newsweek published an op-ed article purporting to show that the true cost of wind power was much higher than it seems. But it turned out that the article contained major factual errors, and its author had failed to disclose that he was the Charles W. Koch professor at Utah State, and a fellow of a Koch- and ExxonMobil-backed think tank."
The Koch Brothers sure have their hands in a lot of pies these days, from think tanks, to national political campaigns, to packing local school boards. The next time we hear about "the invisible hand" of the economy, just think: two pairs of "invisible" (not sure about that!) hands belong to brothers who are increasingly running our country.
I see 2016 as a pivotal election on any number of fronts, but energy is sure one of them. According to climatologists, we may have already passed the tipping point. Even the weather patterns increasingly show that. When even China is eclipsing the US on trying to do something (not that they will), you can see which way the wind blows. And although alternative energies will eventually thrive, I believe, it's still going to be an uphill battle.
Thanks to the Kochs.
"Earlier this year Newsweek published an op-ed article purporting to show that the true cost of wind power was much higher than it seems. But it turned out that the article contained major factual errors, and its author had failed to disclose that he was the Charles W. Koch professor at Utah State, and a fellow of a Koch- and ExxonMobil-backed think tank."
The Koch Brothers sure have their hands in a lot of pies these days, from think tanks, to national political campaigns, to packing local school boards. The next time we hear about "the invisible hand" of the economy, just think: two pairs of "invisible" (not sure about that!) hands belong to brothers who are increasingly running our country.
I see 2016 as a pivotal election on any number of fronts, but energy is sure one of them. According to climatologists, we may have already passed the tipping point. Even the weather patterns increasingly show that. When even China is eclipsing the US on trying to do something (not that they will), you can see which way the wind blows. And although alternative energies will eventually thrive, I believe, it's still going to be an uphill battle.
Thanks to the Kochs.
36
No two people -- not even two old rich white guys -- could possibly hold back the future, if solar & wind power were REALLY effective and worked well, and saved money. No billionaire could ever prevent it from taking hold.
The problem is that it ISN'T effective. It's expensive, with huge start-up costs and equipment, and the "payback" takes years & years and even then is not a sure thing.
What is troubling is that the left won't admit their failures and prefers to blame everything on "the Koch brothers" or "Fox News". Grow up and take responsibility.
The problem is that it ISN'T effective. It's expensive, with huge start-up costs and equipment, and the "payback" takes years & years and even then is not a sure thing.
What is troubling is that the left won't admit their failures and prefers to blame everything on "the Koch brothers" or "Fox News". Grow up and take responsibility.
When solar energy finally becomes economically viable it will be people like the Koch Brothers who bring it to the masses while the Democrats rant about "Big Solar." Did you ever notice that the Democrats will pour millions or billions of dollars into campaigning for green energy policies but they absolutely will not invest their own money in actual green energy infrastructure? If it's viable why wouldn't they want to cash in? Because it's 99% politics and %1 concern for the environment.
On every single issue from energy, to civil rights, to women's rights, to gay rights, to corporate power conservatives in this country have been wrong and react against change. Perhaps the isolationist wing of conservatism would have kept us out of war in an instance or two, but they are always overwhlemed by chickenhawks. What do conservatives offer the body politic? Some cautionary constraint on big government projects? Seriously, I want to know. What good have conservatives done for America? As far as I can tell , they just help rich people get richer. That's it. They are even worse for small business.
I think of Reagan removing Carter's solar panels around the time of appointing James Watt Secretary of the Interior.
Do conservatives tend to give more to local charities? Do they provide social glue in an increasingly atomized world at the local level? Keep families together? What?! What is it they provide the body politic? Because even if they somehow live up to their family values rhetoric, they put people in office whose policies systematically shred the possibility of establishing nurturing relationships due to overwork, lower salaries, higher fees in privatized services, refusal to subsidize child care, family leave etc.
Seriously. Would love a thoughtful reply to this somewhat exasperated reader of Dr. Krugman. Because he's right. There is class warfare and the capitaliist started it and are crushing America's middle and working class since Reagan.
I think of Reagan removing Carter's solar panels around the time of appointing James Watt Secretary of the Interior.
Do conservatives tend to give more to local charities? Do they provide social glue in an increasingly atomized world at the local level? Keep families together? What?! What is it they provide the body politic? Because even if they somehow live up to their family values rhetoric, they put people in office whose policies systematically shred the possibility of establishing nurturing relationships due to overwork, lower salaries, higher fees in privatized services, refusal to subsidize child care, family leave etc.
Seriously. Would love a thoughtful reply to this somewhat exasperated reader of Dr. Krugman. Because he's right. There is class warfare and the capitaliist started it and are crushing America's middle and working class since Reagan.
216
Conservatives give far larger and more frequent donations to charities---a well known fact.
On the same day Dick Cheney was appointed leader of the task force on energy, he was appointed leader of a task force on terrorism. Cheney was handed the just published report of the Hart-Redmond Commission on terrorism.
The energy task force met at least forty times. The terrorism task force met for the first time during the week before 9/11.
Gross dereliction of duty.
The energy task force met at least forty times. The terrorism task force met for the first time during the week before 9/11.
Gross dereliction of duty.
107
Umm. I guess he had a different definition of duty. And a different supporter base.
Thank you for this piece of sad information.
It sounds as if the pond is getting ready to turnover, and what was once on the bottom will now be on the top, and many a big fish will die ---- from lack of, oxygen? (they're not stupid, they'll invest in solar and wind, too!)
Of course the author of the Newsweek article failed to disclose he was a puppet for the Kochs. The blame goes to Newsweek which allowed this man to use their publication to spread dishonest propaganda. Are the Kochs big advertisers? Is Newsweek just another front for propaganda? Are the editors at Newsweek incompetent or lazy? All of the above?
44
After nearly going dark, Newsweek was bought by IBT. Google 'Who owns Newsweek'. It's not your granddaddy's Newsweek anymore.
1
While the rest of the world will move into the 22nd century we in America have to be dragged into the 21st century.
7
No surprises here. Anyone who denies the damage done by CO2 is pretty much back of the bus material. Worse most of the hucksters who go on the stump to pitch climate denial are just in the pocket of Big Fossil. They need to disappear and become tour guide at the Creationist Museum in my sun shines bright ole Kentucky home.
4
Just call it the Gas & Oil Party.
68
Good one!
2
Come on, people! We're preaching to the choir here! I work at Tesla and can see firsthand how the energy picture is changing. Yet, years of well-constructed, fact-based argument in favor of the coming energy Renaissance has fallen on deaf ears of two of my brothers and a dozen local friends! They're so... shall I put the name to it?... Brainwashed!! Let's admit it! Brainwashed by Rush, Fox News, O'Reilly and similar self serving Luddites. And the more facts and effort brought to the table for persuasion, the more the stubborn right decries 'lamestream' media are the true conspirators. What the heck?
30
Fantastic job Professor of collating some scattered facts and figures comparing the current GOP stance on energy, which is incredibly even more retrograde than the one trotted out by Dick Cheney.
If ever there was a way to get to the bottom the current Republican madness including climate science denial, tax cuts for billionaires, gerrymandering, voter suppression, "Citizens United", ALEC, etc., my guess would be to find the very long tentacles of the Koch Brothers in a vast majority of these cases.
Brothers Koch along with the NRA have helped to make the US look like some hate filled, ignorant parody of a Banana Republic in the eyes of rest of the world.
If ever there was a way to get to the bottom the current Republican madness including climate science denial, tax cuts for billionaires, gerrymandering, voter suppression, "Citizens United", ALEC, etc., my guess would be to find the very long tentacles of the Koch Brothers in a vast majority of these cases.
Brothers Koch along with the NRA have helped to make the US look like some hate filled, ignorant parody of a Banana Republic in the eyes of rest of the world.
20
This is why it's absolutely ridiculous to hear Republicans like Rubio, who's trying to distinguish himself from Bush, talking about generational change. He may be younger, but he's still under the thumb of fossilized money.
He cares more about the oil and coal industry than he does about your child's asthma and your child's future.
He cares more about the oil and coal industry than he does about your child's asthma and your child's future.
182
Stuart....Well, if they let children and adults die without health care, and let millions go bankrupt over decades, why should they care about a kid's asthma? The Gop is fossilized regardless of age, and is clinging to its poisonous agenda. The Dems make progressive sounds, but since limited by big money, can only fight back to a limited extent. Our child poverty rate is the highest among industrialized nations. Where is this significant comparison in a Krugman column outraged at the Gop?
1
Conservatives by definition do not like or want change. Compound that attitude with vested interests and big money and you get a monumental wall blocking change.
All the obstacles that conservatives put up against alternative energy only shows their hypocrisy. They are opposed to government tax breaks and subsidies for causes they don't support; for industries like big oil and coal their attitude is let the good times roll.
Conservatives are all for the free market except when they're not. They're attitude is let's assist these oil companies and bail them out and pass laws making alternative energy less competitive. The oil industry fears giving the alternative energy business the same subsidies they receive because they know the future is with these new sources of energy and if people are given a true choice they will choose clean energy.
Conservatives say they are for the future but they fear the future. Many conservatives know that it is only a matter of time before the fossil fuel era comes to an end. They are raging against the tide. Global warming is getting increasingly difficult to deny. Evidence of anthropogenic climate change is everywhere.
Conservatives need to free themselves from the grip big oil and stop fearing the future. Like our forbears they should not fear the problems that lie ahead but seek to address them directly and with courage, That after all is the American way.
All the obstacles that conservatives put up against alternative energy only shows their hypocrisy. They are opposed to government tax breaks and subsidies for causes they don't support; for industries like big oil and coal their attitude is let the good times roll.
Conservatives are all for the free market except when they're not. They're attitude is let's assist these oil companies and bail them out and pass laws making alternative energy less competitive. The oil industry fears giving the alternative energy business the same subsidies they receive because they know the future is with these new sources of energy and if people are given a true choice they will choose clean energy.
Conservatives say they are for the future but they fear the future. Many conservatives know that it is only a matter of time before the fossil fuel era comes to an end. They are raging against the tide. Global warming is getting increasingly difficult to deny. Evidence of anthropogenic climate change is everywhere.
Conservatives need to free themselves from the grip big oil and stop fearing the future. Like our forbears they should not fear the problems that lie ahead but seek to address them directly and with courage, That after all is the American way.
4
Mr Krugman
I have to digress for one specific reason
According to the Wall Street Journal editorial page on Saturday there were some telling statistics under the title "The big jobs miss"
First, employers added only 142,000 net jobs in September. Only 118,000 were in the private sector. Payrolls were lowered by 59,000 for July and August for a monthly average of only 167,000 for the third quarter. That is down from a monthly average of 198,000 this year and 260,000 a month in 2014.
The labor participation rate is 62.4%, it's lowest since 1977
350,000 people left the labor force in September.
This information is interesting given the White House statement on Friday where they said "we must take the steps to continue domestic momentum that the US economy has enjoyed for the last several years. That includes passing a budget that reverses sequestration (see massive tax increase) and makes criticial investments that help our economy continue to grow......"
Mr Krugman, if you're party had a business friendly tax policy would big business be sitting on over $2 trillion in assets? If they had a favorable tax policy wouldn't they offer some type of amnesty to get jobs back here?
When Hillary makes a big speech about climate change and then get's in her private jet that burns 3,400 gallons an hour or the Obama's use Air Force 2 to fly their dog to them in Hawaii because their kids missed him? I don't want to hear about energy and climate change
I have to digress for one specific reason
According to the Wall Street Journal editorial page on Saturday there were some telling statistics under the title "The big jobs miss"
First, employers added only 142,000 net jobs in September. Only 118,000 were in the private sector. Payrolls were lowered by 59,000 for July and August for a monthly average of only 167,000 for the third quarter. That is down from a monthly average of 198,000 this year and 260,000 a month in 2014.
The labor participation rate is 62.4%, it's lowest since 1977
350,000 people left the labor force in September.
This information is interesting given the White House statement on Friday where they said "we must take the steps to continue domestic momentum that the US economy has enjoyed for the last several years. That includes passing a budget that reverses sequestration (see massive tax increase) and makes criticial investments that help our economy continue to grow......"
Mr Krugman, if you're party had a business friendly tax policy would big business be sitting on over $2 trillion in assets? If they had a favorable tax policy wouldn't they offer some type of amnesty to get jobs back here?
When Hillary makes a big speech about climate change and then get's in her private jet that burns 3,400 gallons an hour or the Obama's use Air Force 2 to fly their dog to them in Hawaii because their kids missed him? I don't want to hear about energy and climate change
2
In reply to HealedByGod:
What kind of private jet does Hilary have? I did a simple Google search, and normal private jets consume less than 200 gallons/hour, or almost 1/20th the rate you cite.
What kind of private jet does Hilary have? I did a simple Google search, and normal private jets consume less than 200 gallons/hour, or almost 1/20th the rate you cite.
2
Bo the dog was not flown on AF 2 to Hawaii ' because their kids missed him'. Try a reliable source for your screed
1
Lefty liberals are huge hypocrites on this issue. They will scream and bray about recycling and carrying cloth grocery bags, then take a jumbo jet to Europe for their bi-annual vacation, burning tons of fossil fuels. And best of all, they see no irony in this.
1
Fossil fuels are popular because they are a cheap, high density (lots of energy per unit of fuel), and have been used for a long time (lots of infrastructure is in place for it).
Wind is getting much cheaper but is facing strong "Not In My Back Yard" syndrome, at least here in the Northeast. Here in Maine, environmental groups are strongly divided over it, particularly if an installation is close to the people who run the group (me cynical? nah...)
Solar is low density and expensive, altho the price is dropping rapidly, it's still only viable when heavily subsidized (you manage to get someone else to help pay for most of your installation). I don't see it having a significant contribution to electricity production until the payback period without subsidies is under 10 years (or more likely 7 years). It is a great solution for heating pools in sunny climates, however, just FYI.
Hopefully the costs will drop to the point alternatives can compete with fossil fuel but in the mean time, it's not just Big Business or Conservatives forcing us to use fossil fuels, it's each and every one of us making personally economically sound decisions every day.
The way out? Continuing research to keep making the alternatives cheaper, more research into energy storage (alternative sources are fickle), much more research into ways to remove carbon from the environment (air and/or water) and a revenue neutral carbon tax.
Wind is getting much cheaper but is facing strong "Not In My Back Yard" syndrome, at least here in the Northeast. Here in Maine, environmental groups are strongly divided over it, particularly if an installation is close to the people who run the group (me cynical? nah...)
Solar is low density and expensive, altho the price is dropping rapidly, it's still only viable when heavily subsidized (you manage to get someone else to help pay for most of your installation). I don't see it having a significant contribution to electricity production until the payback period without subsidies is under 10 years (or more likely 7 years). It is a great solution for heating pools in sunny climates, however, just FYI.
Hopefully the costs will drop to the point alternatives can compete with fossil fuel but in the mean time, it's not just Big Business or Conservatives forcing us to use fossil fuels, it's each and every one of us making personally economically sound decisions every day.
The way out? Continuing research to keep making the alternatives cheaper, more research into energy storage (alternative sources are fickle), much more research into ways to remove carbon from the environment (air and/or water) and a revenue neutral carbon tax.
3
Paul I just remembered that Bernie Sanders actually was trying to educate the public about an important renewable energy technology you do not mention that I have mentioned in my first comment as a footnote to your fine column. That technology is Ground Source Geothermal Heat Pump Technology (GSG) and Bernie actually organized an all day Symposium on this technology several years ago in Burlington, Vermont.
That makes him unique among those who want be chosen to run to be president. I do not know how he became interested but it may have been because Champlain College in Burlington is a leader in the use of GSG technology.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
That makes him unique among those who want be chosen to run to be president. I do not know how he became interested but it may have been because Champlain College in Burlington is a leader in the use of GSG technology.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
30
Excellent comment. Readers should note that Lundgren is an emeritus professor of geology who is an expert on geothermal technologies.
1
America is by far the largest per capita consumer of energy in the world both directly and indirectly especially when you keep in mind that much of the energy used in the rest of the world, such as in China, is the result of manufacturing goods for the US market. Also, keep in mind its not just energy related pollution that impacts on climate we need to concern ourselves with but all forms of pollution from our mindless consumption driven economy that needs to concern us.
Unfortunately, to admit we have a problem, whether it is to admit climate change real, toxic air and waterways effects our health; or species extinction endangers our survival is to admit we need to change the way we live and do things differently and that means living more and consuming less.
Such a change is a threat - or so they think - to corporate profits and an even greater threat to the righting's mindless belief in the right to be willfully ignorant.
When you consider all the harm we as a nation are directly responsible for and that we should feel shame for perhaps the greater shame should be for all the good things we could have done but didn't.
Unfortunately, the focusWhile the focus these days is on the
Unfortunately, to admit we have a problem, whether it is to admit climate change real, toxic air and waterways effects our health; or species extinction endangers our survival is to admit we need to change the way we live and do things differently and that means living more and consuming less.
Such a change is a threat - or so they think - to corporate profits and an even greater threat to the righting's mindless belief in the right to be willfully ignorant.
When you consider all the harm we as a nation are directly responsible for and that we should feel shame for perhaps the greater shame should be for all the good things we could have done but didn't.
Unfortunately, the focusWhile the focus these days is on the
4
zb.... frankly, to admit we have a problem is to appear too left wing for our current politics. Standards of what's right vs left is set by the Gop and the opposing forces are too weak. This ensures a certain conformity by politicians and the news media. Yes, they make good sounds, but it's out of step with the powers that be that with their donations control elections and nominees. The Kochs spent 900 million, was it? So far. It's true their main candidate, Walker dropped out, so maybe there's a ray of hope. But those types are setting the agenda for the parties.
Until we repeal Citizens United, with new Supreme Court justices, the 1st step to dealing with climate change can't happen. While we wait for that long legal process to hopefully develop, will we be watching more pollution, as well as floods, hurricanes, forest fires? The news media scripts are all ready for the future destructive weather events. We have few remedies, tethered to a science denying dominant party.
Until we repeal Citizens United, with new Supreme Court justices, the 1st step to dealing with climate change can't happen. While we wait for that long legal process to hopefully develop, will we be watching more pollution, as well as floods, hurricanes, forest fires? The news media scripts are all ready for the future destructive weather events. We have few remedies, tethered to a science denying dominant party.
1
Left unsaid is that a major factor in the drop in cost for solar energy is the transfer of manufacturing, development and expertise from this country and Europe to China. Under pressure from the oil barons, solar companies could never quite get off the ground here. The Chinese, never ones to ignore stupid behavior by American business, stepped into the breech.
What will be next as the GOP continues to defend coal, oil and tar sands in the face of both climate change and rapidly advancing alternate energy technology?
What will be next as the GOP continues to defend coal, oil and tar sands in the face of both climate change and rapidly advancing alternate energy technology?
13
The erosion of U.S. competitiveness as a result of close-minded energy policies is a national disgrace.
1
None of this is surprising. If alternative energy really takes off it will hurt existing businesses badly. It is not much different from natural gas hurting coal. The newer energy takes business from the old. In the case of solar power on people's houses, it isn't just the oil, gas and coal industry that is fearful, utility companies would be greatly impacted as they become less important as electricity producers and more energy transmitters. Energy and utilities have been one of those solid, go to investments for years. It isn't surprising that people who have invested a lot in them want to protect them. What is sad is that people who are hurt by this are also vote with the Republicans.
7
"Follow the money" seems to be the catch phrase for every political initiative in America today. The thought that a candidate or party would support an issue or action because of its logical, moral, or ethical superiority is simply not conceivable in today's politics.
It may be that this has always been true in our country. Perhaps the Revolution was fought for cash, and Lincoln was paid under the table to write the Emancipation Proclamation. Maybe our joining the British in World War I to fight the Huns was just act of avarice. And how do we explain all of that government sponsored research in medicine that helped to create polio and other vaccines, and find cures for cancer. Were those programs too decided by greedy rich men behind the scenes, who thought to make money off our suffering?
Our politics today is rotten with cash for no reason other than we are letting it be that way. I think that we were once better. If money is speech (as our beloved Supreme Court says), the money men had better wake up and shut up. America is tired of being bought and being misled!
It may be that this has always been true in our country. Perhaps the Revolution was fought for cash, and Lincoln was paid under the table to write the Emancipation Proclamation. Maybe our joining the British in World War I to fight the Huns was just act of avarice. And how do we explain all of that government sponsored research in medicine that helped to create polio and other vaccines, and find cures for cancer. Were those programs too decided by greedy rich men behind the scenes, who thought to make money off our suffering?
Our politics today is rotten with cash for no reason other than we are letting it be that way. I think that we were once better. If money is speech (as our beloved Supreme Court says), the money men had better wake up and shut up. America is tired of being bought and being misled!
7
I was "hippy dippy" back in the days when my idol, Buckminster Fuller was encouraging thinking beyond the then conventional. I can't agree more with Dr. Krugman...the time for "New Energy" has come and the sooner we accept that fact and take advantage of the positive changes in store, the better.
The environmental effects of our unbridled exploitation of coal and petroleum is now abuntandtly clear. We now can be on another path. We should drag the GOP and their special "Old Energy" supporters, albeit kicking and screaming, down that road.
The environmental effects of our unbridled exploitation of coal and petroleum is now abuntandtly clear. We now can be on another path. We should drag the GOP and their special "Old Energy" supporters, albeit kicking and screaming, down that road.
7
The driver's of Big Energy have made enough money for a hundred lifetimes - the fact that they can't now dream of developing renewable resources for the future with their billions shows complete ignorance and lack of imagination. Continuing to plunder the earth's resources, our home, with no conscience for the future of it's health except to line one's own pockets is neanderthal thinking. They have actively prevented new, clean and safe alternatives, while doing the earth irreparable harm. Shouldn't this be a crime? How can we stand this any longer?
16
Here is how powerful solar energy is.
I installed a 5.2KW system on my house. It occupies less than 400 square feet of roof space. Over a 12 month period, my house requires 600 KHW per month and that's with an old AC system with an EER of 10. Since Feb., my house has consumed about 100 KHW more electricity than it has consumed, which is about $12 worth. Now that it has cooled off, I should start running a surplus again and reduce that deficit.
Think about this. I only needed 400 square feet. My lot is 8250 square feet. That's only 5% of my land. If house lots and roofs were arranged to provide just a few hundred square feet of open, south facing area, we could generate enormous amounts of energy.
Solar lends itself to a distributed format. That means decentralized power generation. That means a public/private partnership between utilities and consumers of power is required. The costs are about two months of chemotherapy per household.
Wha utilities need is to be compensated for storing and distributing power, which is a new economic model. We have the technology now and battery costs are rapidly dropping.
OK GOP, this is the type of legislation needed. Your precious utility clients will not be driven out of business. They just need to change the way they make money.
There is nothing "conservative" about sacrificing the world for coal. Conservation is very conservative. We can do this.
I installed a 5.2KW system on my house. It occupies less than 400 square feet of roof space. Over a 12 month period, my house requires 600 KHW per month and that's with an old AC system with an EER of 10. Since Feb., my house has consumed about 100 KHW more electricity than it has consumed, which is about $12 worth. Now that it has cooled off, I should start running a surplus again and reduce that deficit.
Think about this. I only needed 400 square feet. My lot is 8250 square feet. That's only 5% of my land. If house lots and roofs were arranged to provide just a few hundred square feet of open, south facing area, we could generate enormous amounts of energy.
Solar lends itself to a distributed format. That means decentralized power generation. That means a public/private partnership between utilities and consumers of power is required. The costs are about two months of chemotherapy per household.
Wha utilities need is to be compensated for storing and distributing power, which is a new economic model. We have the technology now and battery costs are rapidly dropping.
OK GOP, this is the type of legislation needed. Your precious utility clients will not be driven out of business. They just need to change the way they make money.
There is nothing "conservative" about sacrificing the world for coal. Conservation is very conservative. We can do this.
898
But how much did this cost? It is meaningless if you don't tell us the upfront costs, or how you paid for them. If installing those solar panels (and a storage system) cost $100K, and you got $10K of power from it, it was a bad investment.
You also don't tell us if you still have traditional electricity, natural gas or LP gas to run stuff in your house. I seriously doubt you have removed yourself entirely from "the grid" in Kansas City, which is very cold for half of the year.
In short, this is an "add-on" system to conventional power, and it provides you with SOME energy but at a VERY VERY high cost, including tens of thousands of dollars to buy & install. Most people do not have this money to install solar, or to install it and find out 5 years later that it is hopelessly outdated & they cannot get parts.
You also don't tell us if you still have traditional electricity, natural gas or LP gas to run stuff in your house. I seriously doubt you have removed yourself entirely from "the grid" in Kansas City, which is very cold for half of the year.
In short, this is an "add-on" system to conventional power, and it provides you with SOME energy but at a VERY VERY high cost, including tens of thousands of dollars to buy & install. Most people do not have this money to install solar, or to install it and find out 5 years later that it is hopelessly outdated & they cannot get parts.
1
Likewise. I live in a northern and not very sunny part of the US. The house is not perfectly situated, with only a fractionally southern exposure. Nevertheless, to my surprise, since installation our 8.5 KW system has generated essentially 100% of our daily consumption. Most of that generation comes during peak business consumption hours, meaning that need for excess generation capacity on the grid is reduced. Moreover, technologies already and soon to be available will allow us to store excess capacity for non-producing hours. Seems like a winner to me!
3
In response to concerned citizen: My out of pocket expense was $500. I don't own the system, which would have cost ~$35K to install, (certainly not a bad deal if amortized over 25 years). Instead the solar company owns and services it, and I pay them for the electricity instead of the grid company. The $500 out of pocket went to lock the already reasonable electricity rate for 25 years. Excess generation (if any) at the end of the year is purchased (at wholesale) by the grid company. Note that different states regulate these grid company interactions in various ways, not all as reasonable.
4
Solar is basically unstoppable at this point. Rooftop solar has gone from am odd curiosity to something you're "seeing more of everyday. " I predict that 10 years from now, it's going to be a check-box item on new home plans. And to the dismay of the GOP the reason for this is the very attitude of "rugged individualism" that the party lionizes. Given the opportunity to "unhook from the grid" and generate their own electricity lots of Americans eagerly say "yes," including some of the GOP most reliable voters.
577
With the Right Wing going on so about self-reliance, it seems that going solar (or wind turbine generation) , even to the point of going off-grid, is a perfect fit for conservatives. It becomes clearer and clearer whose interests the GOP serves. As if we didn't already know.
1
Time for Democrats to begin an "individualism" strategy that caters to those who believe that the government interferes too much and to focus on energy independence, bedroom independence, etc. Get rid of income taxes and replace with new ideas such as VAT and wealth taxes. Encourage "small" businesses by redefining "small" to mean something really small, not under 1,000 employees or below $100MM in revenue. Companies that size are not small. Independent people often own or work in businesses with fewer than ten employees and that gross under $1MM. You can even reach an accommodation on guns. It's not that hard when most gun owners don't want crazies getting guns.
Nixon did it with the South, after all.
Nixon did it with the South, after all.
Try living in Florida, the "Sunshine State"! Less than 1/10th of 1% of Florida's electricity comes from solar energy. The solar energy market, and the Florida home owner has been stomped on by our lovely Republican state legislators and leading the way is Republican Rick Scott.
1
Same old story. The GOP is far more concerned about making money for their bosses than it is in working for the American people. Why do people vote for them?
37
Because the US is ruled in fact by the 1%, who resist energy innovation as a threat to their dividends, there will be nothing but lip service paid to wind, sun and geothermal sources of power. Though Texas boasts the largest wind exploitation projects in the nation (I worked on them when I was in private) it also has its own power grid and considers itself energy independent from the rest of the nation. The Houston oil execs have succeeded in brainwashing Congress to remain hooked to fossil fuels, much as our local IV drug users in this area rely on heroin. Too bad it's laced with fentanyl and such-like toxins sometimes, that cause an OD. Similarly, when the effects of fracking and the hazards of transporting its tarry crude in tank cars come home to roost, we may see a change in political will. I'm not holding my breath.
175
While it is true that Texas is home to many old-school energy companies, produces more petroleum than any other state and has much of the US's refining capacity for petroleum, it is also true that Texas has more wind-power currently being generated than any other state.
If we are serious about solar power, I proffer that many of the Federal lands, including national parks and wilderness areas, in the desert Southwest should be selectively leased out for solar power generation. A thousand acres of solar panels can generate a substantial amount of power,and be placed in such a way as to minimize the impacts on native wildlife in these areas.
For wind power, we must rapidly move to more offshore wind farms along our coasts - anyone who complains about the visual impacts for size of windmills located more thane a mile or two from shore, fails to understand how small these will seem, if they can be seen at all. We cannot have significant change without some level of sacrifice.
If we are serious about solar power, I proffer that many of the Federal lands, including national parks and wilderness areas, in the desert Southwest should be selectively leased out for solar power generation. A thousand acres of solar panels can generate a substantial amount of power,and be placed in such a way as to minimize the impacts on native wildlife in these areas.
For wind power, we must rapidly move to more offshore wind farms along our coasts - anyone who complains about the visual impacts for size of windmills located more thane a mile or two from shore, fails to understand how small these will seem, if they can be seen at all. We cannot have significant change without some level of sacrifice.
1
I think the reason GOP & Big (old) energy support fossil fuel over renewable sources, is that fossil fuel ownership and exploitation is more easily controlled.
Wind and sunshine are abundant and found everywhere. But fossil fuels requires finding deposits, and extracting those resources, and then bringing them to market.
Every player in that supply chain - from sovereign nations that "own" reserves, to extraction and processing, to marketing and finance that support he industry, all have their share of that flow of old energy wealth put in jeopardy by the emergence of renewables.
The corrupting influence of money in politics killing good policy in the public sphere, is like the proliferation of guns in the US killing the innocent citizenry with abandon.
So shall we say, 'Political contributions don't kill good policy, representatives do'?
Wind and sunshine are abundant and found everywhere. But fossil fuels requires finding deposits, and extracting those resources, and then bringing them to market.
Every player in that supply chain - from sovereign nations that "own" reserves, to extraction and processing, to marketing and finance that support he industry, all have their share of that flow of old energy wealth put in jeopardy by the emergence of renewables.
The corrupting influence of money in politics killing good policy in the public sphere, is like the proliferation of guns in the US killing the innocent citizenry with abandon.
So shall we say, 'Political contributions don't kill good policy, representatives do'?
7
To make things worse 90% of fertilizers used in agriculture are derived from fossil fuel and no one has taken into account the true oil reserves of this country when you factor in this massive usage into the equation.
3
Left out is contrasts with other nations. RW parties abroad face climate change and Green Parties have input. Why not use these as concrete role models for our 2016 campaign?
See editorial-- Repubs May Be Alone on Climate Change, Sept 21.
Study: “of the top conservative parties in each of nine countries — US, UK, Australia, Germany, Spain, Sweden, Norway, Canada and New Zealand —the US Gop was the ONLY ONE to deny the existence of human-caused climate change.” Shocking contrast. The Grand Old Party of Climate Denial is unique!
Study says once you agree on the premise of climate change, you can debate the best combination of govt and market forces to tackle it. “That sort of substantive debate between political parties is, sadly, not possible in the U.S., at least for now.” (when oh lord, can we restore democracy?)
The awful truth is that the US Gop is alone among modern nations in treating citizens as 2nd class—health care, gun control, social security, criminal justice, education, retirement, you name it. It's unique among democracies in its legalized alliance to big money and corporate power vs other countries using public funds for elections. This is the main point.
It’s outrageous that they’d shut down the govt to destroy a woman’s health organization, while abroad, womens’ reproductive health is accepted as basic rights of a modern nation.
By contrast, US voters must realize how alone we are, and what we should be demanding of our representatives.
See editorial-- Repubs May Be Alone on Climate Change, Sept 21.
Study: “of the top conservative parties in each of nine countries — US, UK, Australia, Germany, Spain, Sweden, Norway, Canada and New Zealand —the US Gop was the ONLY ONE to deny the existence of human-caused climate change.” Shocking contrast. The Grand Old Party of Climate Denial is unique!
Study says once you agree on the premise of climate change, you can debate the best combination of govt and market forces to tackle it. “That sort of substantive debate between political parties is, sadly, not possible in the U.S., at least for now.” (when oh lord, can we restore democracy?)
The awful truth is that the US Gop is alone among modern nations in treating citizens as 2nd class—health care, gun control, social security, criminal justice, education, retirement, you name it. It's unique among democracies in its legalized alliance to big money and corporate power vs other countries using public funds for elections. This is the main point.
It’s outrageous that they’d shut down the govt to destroy a woman’s health organization, while abroad, womens’ reproductive health is accepted as basic rights of a modern nation.
By contrast, US voters must realize how alone we are, and what we should be demanding of our representatives.
65
@ Meredith-In my comment I remind Paul Krugman that he frequently mentions Sweden mostly in terms of economics but at least once to praise First Aid Kit so I add Swedish renewable energy technologies never mentioned in the Times, not even by Krugman.
As a dual citizen I am afraid that most US voters (a majority at least) know almost nothing about other countries as concerns areas too numerous to mention.
If every NYT column were to be accompanied by a fact box (fakta ruta) at the bottom as is standard in my Swedish newspapers DN and GP our fellow Americans could be confronted by real facts. Have asked the Public Editor to discuss this, will try again.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
As a dual citizen I am afraid that most US voters (a majority at least) know almost nothing about other countries as concerns areas too numerous to mention.
If every NYT column were to be accompanied by a fact box (fakta ruta) at the bottom as is standard in my Swedish newspapers DN and GP our fellow Americans could be confronted by real facts. Have asked the Public Editor to discuss this, will try again.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
1
Larry Lundgren...as a dual citizen you have a useful perspective we can use. A fact box is a great idea. Send us a short example or 2 from a Swedish newspaper--in English!
What we need with articles and columns is a contrasting fact box re an advanced country on how they've dealt with problems that so plague our polarized politics. Start with h/c as 1 example-- how they regulate drug & insurance costs, which here is against the law. So we have the world's costliest medical care, not getting enough in return for our tax subsidies.
Our gop is much more rw than the rw parties in modern nations. They don't have our corporate funding of elections.
Prof Krugman has written mostly negatively on Sweden and other countries, neglecting positive aspects. I recall the 2 directors of the biggest Swedish bank complained in a letter to the editor of the NY Times that they felt Krugman was distorting Sweden's policies--I think it was on spending and interest rates.
But PK never cites how they finance their h/c and other social protections that sustains their middle class, which we lack.
What we need with articles and columns is a contrasting fact box re an advanced country on how they've dealt with problems that so plague our polarized politics. Start with h/c as 1 example-- how they regulate drug & insurance costs, which here is against the law. So we have the world's costliest medical care, not getting enough in return for our tax subsidies.
Our gop is much more rw than the rw parties in modern nations. They don't have our corporate funding of elections.
Prof Krugman has written mostly negatively on Sweden and other countries, neglecting positive aspects. I recall the 2 directors of the biggest Swedish bank complained in a letter to the editor of the NY Times that they felt Krugman was distorting Sweden's policies--I think it was on spending and interest rates.
But PK never cites how they finance their h/c and other social protections that sustains their middle class, which we lack.
1
@ concerned citizen I am going to flag your comment since it has nothing to do with the subject at hand which is renewable energy. In addition "most" is not a useful adjective here. If you claim expertise on the subject of your final sentence present that expertise in a discussion of that subject. This is not the place.
Larry
Larry
1
Funny about the frakking that has released the potential of the oil shales we always knew were out there. Frakking uses a lot of water, often in places where water is relatively scarce. We may find that we replaced our hunger of oil and gas with one for water - and once we get there, we have no alternative sources.
9
That's why there's all the excitement about water on Mars. Even now, they're trying to figure out the piping system to bring it to California.
No Sources for water? That big wet thing next to you is the Alantic Ocean! In fact the very air around you is full of water! Look under your car on a hot day!
As you said: “you need to follow the money “.
Fossil fuels have much more money attached, so their lobbies might 'support' much better the G.O.P.s electoral campaign and make better 'convincing' operations in the Congress G.O.P.'s arena.
Wind and Sun energy are much cheaper and overall there is not yet a powerful and capillary lobby of their constructors, so they have less 'convincing' and 'supporting' money and power.
That's why G.O.P.s are more prone to fossil energy, rather than the wind and sun one.
Fossil fuels have much more money attached, so their lobbies might 'support' much better the G.O.P.s electoral campaign and make better 'convincing' operations in the Congress G.O.P.'s arena.
Wind and Sun energy are much cheaper and overall there is not yet a powerful and capillary lobby of their constructors, so they have less 'convincing' and 'supporting' money and power.
That's why G.O.P.s are more prone to fossil energy, rather than the wind and sun one.
5
As one guy said, they can't control the wind and the sun, though.
Running for President is about a vision for our future. Why do Republican candidates want to drag us back into the past in energy policy, voting rights, reproductive rights, and immigration?
12
Sounds like Old Energy is using many of the ideas from the Old Tobacco's playbook. Time to turn the tables and do to Energy what was done with Tobacco.
Any know a good whistleblower?
Any know a good whistleblower?
5
Today's GOP aren't conservatives at all, they are reactionaries.
They fear the future.
If you spend all your time looking backwards, you are going to
walk into a lot of walls.Hostile to math, science, and facts.
They fear the future.
If you spend all your time looking backwards, you are going to
walk into a lot of walls.Hostile to math, science, and facts.
27
Energy likely won't be a major issue this next election cycle, which is CRAZY! Of the private companies with annual revenue greater than $100B, half are in the energy sector.
August 2015, atmospheric CO2, 398.82 ppm. M.I.T. (where there are real scientists) projects 866 ppm in 2095, with the Arctic warming 20 degrees F.
August 2015, atmospheric CO2, 398.82 ppm. M.I.T. (where there are real scientists) projects 866 ppm in 2095, with the Arctic warming 20 degrees F.
6
Tesla and Google have both worked on systems to generate more power at home than a household uses.
Why don't these companies create a critical mass of homes using solar, and start this next revolution? They had an article in today's times about a second machine age with all sorts of efficiency monitoring of electrical devices in the home. It seems to me that for an entity to push solar would be away to legally take away market share and profit from very large corporations, and go a long way in mitigating climate change. It's all there for the taking.
In this state, the Arizona Corporation Commission has stood behind ossified utilities and raised the price for homeowners to convert to solar. Very counter productive.
Why don't these companies create a critical mass of homes using solar, and start this next revolution? They had an article in today's times about a second machine age with all sorts of efficiency monitoring of electrical devices in the home. It seems to me that for an entity to push solar would be away to legally take away market share and profit from very large corporations, and go a long way in mitigating climate change. It's all there for the taking.
In this state, the Arizona Corporation Commission has stood behind ossified utilities and raised the price for homeowners to convert to solar. Very counter productive.
9
In a free market, one proper response to threats from upstart technologies is to hedge with investments in those technologies. Instead Koch Industries buys politicians, educators and propagandists to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt. These are just costly delays. If alternatives are viable, they will eventually be rewarded by the market.
22
Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio of all people should know better. Florida gets hit yearly by flooding, hurricanes and the biggest tropical storms. Their state is surrounded by coastline, all exposed to ocean water and Mother Nature. To be in deep denial about the adverse effects of Climate Change which impacts the population, real estate and the tourist industry is criminal to say the least.
When their coastline start disappearing, they won’t be ignoring Mother Nature any more. The millionaires who have prime real estate and other realtors will be banging down their doors for remunerations and a fix. Let just say, a governor in NJ was asking for Federal aid not too long ago. Can you imagine if he didn’t get it?? The Oil Industrialists aren't going to bail you out.
It’s only a matter a time when the “big” ones hit and the state will be in desperate need of ongoing Federal assistance. Guess who is going to get the blame? You reap what you sow…
When their coastline start disappearing, they won’t be ignoring Mother Nature any more. The millionaires who have prime real estate and other realtors will be banging down their doors for remunerations and a fix. Let just say, a governor in NJ was asking for Federal aid not too long ago. Can you imagine if he didn’t get it?? The Oil Industrialists aren't going to bail you out.
It’s only a matter a time when the “big” ones hit and the state will be in desperate need of ongoing Federal assistance. Guess who is going to get the blame? You reap what you sow…
15
I can only hope for rational open mindedness to prevail over vested interests. I was an Air Force weather officer for 22 years with degrees from NYU and MIT and I accept man made global warming is an existionalist threat. My father was an immigrant from Scotland and after finishing high school, worked the WV coal mines for 14 years. I have quite a few relatives who died or suffered serious injuries in coal mines and I wish coal mining to end. But in WV and KY, these are the only available jobs. I have doubts about fracking, considering poisoning of our ground water and earthquakes in Oklahoma. I support alternative energy, but as a meteorologist, i know that the sun doesn't always shine nor the winds always blow. I was born and raised in Niagara Falls and I value the clean energy the falls produce, but such falls are a rare freak of nature.
There is no free lunch. I hope that people of good will can cooperate and come up with the best solutions to protect our environment. Given what is going on, I fear that my hopes will crushed by greed and dishonesty.
There is no free lunch. I hope that people of good will can cooperate and come up with the best solutions to protect our environment. Given what is going on, I fear that my hopes will crushed by greed and dishonesty.
20
What baffles me most is, that having solar panels on your roof is the American dream of independence in it's most pure form. No need to rely on anyone. I'd imagine that this would be a huge selling argument.
27
Then there's this from the LA Times, Oct. 5, 2015:
"The business models that have made solar systems financially viable for millions of homeowners in California, New England and elsewhere around the country are largely illegal in Florida, Virginia, South Carolina and some other Southern states. Companies that pioneered the industry, such as SolarCity Corp. and Sunrun Inc., do not even attempt to do business there."
"The business models that have made solar systems financially viable for millions of homeowners in California, New England and elsewhere around the country are largely illegal in Florida, Virginia, South Carolina and some other Southern states. Companies that pioneered the industry, such as SolarCity Corp. and Sunrun Inc., do not even attempt to do business there."
24
Florida is the only state that I have seen where there IS widespread use of solar power -- to heat swimming pools. It works pretty well, though not perfectly, for that. A few days of cool, overcast weather and your pool is freezing cold again.
2
Vote GOP if you love the 19th century.
127
I've seen some of this coming for ten years. The peak clock rate from Intel was about 5 GHz nearly ten years ago. Now their chips run at 2.5 GHz. Why? It's heat dissipation. But beyond that, at 10 GHz, light travels about 1 inch in a clock period. So, you ask, what does this have to do with alternative energy?
The point is this: Computers are done. The really interesting challenge for this generation of clever electrical engineers is: Energy! And Gordon Moore should be proud, because the current generation of smart young EE's are making amazing improvements, and will soon make fossil fuels totally obsolete.
The Koch brothers can fight it to their last breath, but they have lost. They are losers. And the Republican Party is in its death spiral.
The point is this: Computers are done. The really interesting challenge for this generation of clever electrical engineers is: Energy! And Gordon Moore should be proud, because the current generation of smart young EE's are making amazing improvements, and will soon make fossil fuels totally obsolete.
The Koch brothers can fight it to their last breath, but they have lost. They are losers. And the Republican Party is in its death spiral.
100
Actually, I think it is the Democratic Party which is in a death spiral.
It's 2015. The next election is 13 months off. Who are they running? Only TWO candidates. One is a former First Lady. The other is an admitted Marxist Socialist. Both are elderly (68 and 74), both are rich, both are very white. Both are from the Northeast. The gentleman, Mr. Sanders, is from the whitest state in the union.
That's it. They have no back bench. They have no alternates. They have not one black or hispanic or asian or mixed race candidate. Nobody else has even raised their hand with the vague hope of running.
The Dems have held power for 7 years now, and where is all that solar power? where are the new high speed trains? where is the mass public transit? Heck, where are the flying cars?
It's all talk and hot air. BTW: if the Republican Party truly was dying, then the Dems would not be hysterical every 5 minutes over Donald Trump. You don't get hysterical when you have a total lock on victory.
It's 2015. The next election is 13 months off. Who are they running? Only TWO candidates. One is a former First Lady. The other is an admitted Marxist Socialist. Both are elderly (68 and 74), both are rich, both are very white. Both are from the Northeast. The gentleman, Mr. Sanders, is from the whitest state in the union.
That's it. They have no back bench. They have no alternates. They have not one black or hispanic or asian or mixed race candidate. Nobody else has even raised their hand with the vague hope of running.
The Dems have held power for 7 years now, and where is all that solar power? where are the new high speed trains? where is the mass public transit? Heck, where are the flying cars?
It's all talk and hot air. BTW: if the Republican Party truly was dying, then the Dems would not be hysterical every 5 minutes over Donald Trump. You don't get hysterical when you have a total lock on victory.
3
CC,
You've heard of the totally obstructionist Congress, maybe?
Oh, and the Democratic party has 3 sane and intelligent candidates running - while the Repubs have zero who met those criteria.
You've heard of the totally obstructionist Congress, maybe?
Oh, and the Democratic party has 3 sane and intelligent candidates running - while the Repubs have zero who met those criteria.
6
I hope you are right!
Very surprising that renewable energy firms would support ANY Republicans, given the GOP's very long and very consistent history of voting against renewables and climate legislation at least as far back as poor Al Gore's attempt at a btu tax in 1991.
Only 56% to Democrats?? Democrats are your ONLY shot, not a 50/50 deal.
Only 56% to Democrats?? Democrats are your ONLY shot, not a 50/50 deal.
9
How many times have we seen companies suppress their own research that shows the smoking gun? Tobacco, drug, car and even food companies all have skeletons in their closet. Profits are more important than people or our livelihoods. That’s why we have laws and regulations - to level the playing field and make sure no one has an unfair advantage.
The energy sector is just one of many contributors to the GOP. They will do whatever it takes to prop up or subsidize these companies, even if it sets us back as a nation. They demonize Climate Change and all renewable energies because their livelihoods depend on it and their "fossilized" constituencies can’t profit from it. Cronyism and corruption at it’s worse.
As Benjamin Franklin once said, “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.”
The energy sector is just one of many contributors to the GOP. They will do whatever it takes to prop up or subsidize these companies, even if it sets us back as a nation. They demonize Climate Change and all renewable energies because their livelihoods depend on it and their "fossilized" constituencies can’t profit from it. Cronyism and corruption at it’s worse.
As Benjamin Franklin once said, “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.”
25
Spence,
I have one of those cars that use no gas. I have it because it makes $ense! I also have a house that is solar powered because that too makes $ense! Things that make $ense don't require political labels.
I have one of those cars that use no gas. I have it because it makes $ense! I also have a house that is solar powered because that too makes $ense! Things that make $ense don't require political labels.
1
All the GOP fossils want fossil fuels 4ever!
Thank you for the detail in this piece. I implore you to keep beating this drum. People need to learn the factual facts.
I assume you've read Jeremy Rifkin's "Third Industrial Revolution"? It has a lot of detail and vision too. Merkel groks/deeply gets it.
May the Sun rise . . .
Thank you for the detail in this piece. I implore you to keep beating this drum. People need to learn the factual facts.
I assume you've read Jeremy Rifkin's "Third Industrial Revolution"? It has a lot of detail and vision too. Merkel groks/deeply gets it.
May the Sun rise . . .
7
Wendy,
Speaking of things "Fossil" have you examined your presidential candidates? They are all Old White Politicians!
FWI, the word "Gork" was invented by a Conservative Republican author a long time ago.
Speaking of things "Fossil" have you examined your presidential candidates? They are all Old White Politicians!
FWI, the word "Gork" was invented by a Conservative Republican author a long time ago.
1
It could have been 10 times worse for South Carolina with this 1 in a thousand year rain event. Godzilla had his beady eyes on the poor state but fled with his tail between his legs for some strange reason perhaps saving his great war on the State of California soon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5EwAHA3C-g
Also ,chances are just in time for the 2016 election the Arctic may have another record breaking ice melt making it possible for Bernie Sanders to win the election in a landslide.
The earth must come to our rescue so it seems
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5EwAHA3C-g
Also ,chances are just in time for the 2016 election the Arctic may have another record breaking ice melt making it possible for Bernie Sanders to win the election in a landslide.
The earth must come to our rescue so it seems
4
Thanks PK. We environmentalists need your brain. Long after the next bust, the next bubble, the Feds discrediting, China stealing jobs - there will be the battle for the survival of the ecosystem.
There is only one calling for good brains - and its the saving of the planet.
Nothing short of a new economic theory - in which growth is no longer good - will do.
We need you.
There is only one calling for good brains - and its the saving of the planet.
Nothing short of a new economic theory - in which growth is no longer good - will do.
We need you.
5
"I have mine" so growth is now bad for everyone else? What a great policy!
1
Paul Krugman, thanks for this column and even thanks to the Headline Writer for "Enemies of the Sun" headline.
I offer only two brief observations:
1) Without this column there would be nothing in the New York Times about renewable energy. Nothing worth reading in Science Times. Dot Earth not much help. Usually the opposite from Times frackers Brooks and Nocera. So thanks.
2) Just a reminder for you, who often cite Sweden in various contexts: In Sweden we have wind and solar but also two others in which the Times has no interest: Fjärrvärme (Municipal waste incineration heats water piped out in every city to heat homes and buildings includ) and a variety of Heat Pump technologies including Ground Source Geothermal, Air-Air, and Air-Water.
Will be fun to read the comments - none here at this hour in Sweden 09:51 h 5/10.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
I offer only two brief observations:
1) Without this column there would be nothing in the New York Times about renewable energy. Nothing worth reading in Science Times. Dot Earth not much help. Usually the opposite from Times frackers Brooks and Nocera. So thanks.
2) Just a reminder for you, who often cite Sweden in various contexts: In Sweden we have wind and solar but also two others in which the Times has no interest: Fjärrvärme (Municipal waste incineration heats water piped out in every city to heat homes and buildings includ) and a variety of Heat Pump technologies including Ground Source Geothermal, Air-Air, and Air-Water.
Will be fun to read the comments - none here at this hour in Sweden 09:51 h 5/10.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
18
Larry,
Sweden, Finland and Norway have a smaller combined population than does Southern California. They also lack the location and climate to take direct advantage of solar energy. Individuals and utilities are making large investments in solar energy systems in California and the U.S. Much of the equipment comes from China. The U.S. needs a policy that encourages domestic manufacturing not trade policies that export it as the current Administration is doing,
Sweden, Finland and Norway have a smaller combined population than does Southern California. They also lack the location and climate to take direct advantage of solar energy. Individuals and utilities are making large investments in solar energy systems in California and the U.S. Much of the equipment comes from China. The U.S. needs a policy that encourages domestic manufacturing not trade policies that export it as the current Administration is doing,
1
Solar and wind energy should be given tax breaks equivalent to the benefits that hydroelectric, oil and coal receive. Hydro is more than half of electric supply in large areas of the country and is almost all government produced.
Then every individual should be given an equivalent tax rebate. If oil companies can get a depletion allowance, people should get them too.
This idea of Welfare for All has been tried in Canada and on US Indian reservations, and it works. Every American should receive a government check, just as citizens of Alaska do from taxes on their oil production.
To see this and other great ideas to save America, the world and capitalism go to YouTube and watch Comedy Party Platform (2 min 9 sec). Then send a buck to Bernie Sanders and invite me to speak to your group. Thanks,
Then every individual should be given an equivalent tax rebate. If oil companies can get a depletion allowance, people should get them too.
This idea of Welfare for All has been tried in Canada and on US Indian reservations, and it works. Every American should receive a government check, just as citizens of Alaska do from taxes on their oil production.
To see this and other great ideas to save America, the world and capitalism go to YouTube and watch Comedy Party Platform (2 min 9 sec). Then send a buck to Bernie Sanders and invite me to speak to your group. Thanks,
4
have you ever been to a reservation? be assured, it doesn't work. horrible example.
2
What is the reason why alternative energy gave only 56% of its support to Democrats? Given the lock step opposition of Republicans to alternative energy, something is very wrong with this picture.
4
They are doing what fossil fuels did in the past, giving to both sides to have a seat at the table. But fossil fuels when all in on Republicans and ideology over policy. Renewable energy companies are far more rational thinking and giving to both parties, when your industry is affected by policy from Congress, is only common sense.
3
As long as businessmen have been around, they have hated and feared any form of competition that might affect their bottom line. The coal and oil industries prospered because their raw materials were located deep within the earth and could be exploited only through intensive physical investment and distribution. Both are being challenged by technologies that take advantage of naturally-occurring energy from the sun and wind. Unlike the fossil fuel industries, these new technologies do not require either horizontally- or vertically-integrated manufacturing or distribution plants requiring massive capital investment. They do threaten existing power companies by eliminating the need for excess generating capacity to adjust for seasonal fluctuations.
Undoubtedly, fossil fuel industries will look to maintain whatever political advantage they can, wherever they can, but they can no longer maintain lawful monopolies over supply and delivery of energy. Moreover, in rural areas the cost of installing and maintaining a power grid may be higher than what ratepayers can afford to pay. What remains is propaganda that is unlikely to sway ratepayers faced with mounting and ultimately unsustainable power bills.
People vote their hearts, but most often they vote their pocketbooks. If renewable energy saves money, people will want it whatever their politics. Ultimately, today's energy companies will seek to enter the renewable energy industry, but they will no longer dominate.
Undoubtedly, fossil fuel industries will look to maintain whatever political advantage they can, wherever they can, but they can no longer maintain lawful monopolies over supply and delivery of energy. Moreover, in rural areas the cost of installing and maintaining a power grid may be higher than what ratepayers can afford to pay. What remains is propaganda that is unlikely to sway ratepayers faced with mounting and ultimately unsustainable power bills.
People vote their hearts, but most often they vote their pocketbooks. If renewable energy saves money, people will want it whatever their politics. Ultimately, today's energy companies will seek to enter the renewable energy industry, but they will no longer dominate.
298
I used to believe in evolution, that humans are evolving to more humanity, more sanity, more safety, more good will. I was wrong: we are devolving to only power, money, control. And also to become air heads like Jeb!
5
I hope you are right. How do we educate rural & southern voters on using & supporting solar/wind? They are electing the servants of the Oil/Coal companies, who seek to throttle wind/solar. Also how do we improve the
Power Grid to move wind/solar power from generating states to consuming cities often in Northeast or old Middle West. California & much of the South have large potential for Solar.
Offshore wind has NOT been done in USA, but is common in Northern Europe; Why not here?? One reason Nimby's & well off, who want to preserve their views, whilst they count their dividends & bond coupons of the Utility companies.
Power Grid to move wind/solar power from generating states to consuming cities often in Northeast or old Middle West. California & much of the South have large potential for Solar.
Offshore wind has NOT been done in USA, but is common in Northern Europe; Why not here?? One reason Nimby's & well off, who want to preserve their views, whilst they count their dividends & bond coupons of the Utility companies.
1
Coal miners should start their own solar company. People would support it!
2
Not only are fossil fuels subsidized in the tax code, they have stood the idea of a free market on it's head another way. Uniquely they are using our shared air and water as their own free toxic waste dump.
Every household and the vast majority of businesses must pay for waste disposal. Not Big Carbon, they enhance their profits from polluting for free.
The disinformation campaign at the core of Old Energy's current strategy, like the bogus op-ed in Newsweek, lays bare the tactics of Koch Propaganda & Pollution.
Question, if burning natural gas produces half the CO2 of oil, why is Detroit not building all cars and trucks to run on natural gas?
Every household and the vast majority of businesses must pay for waste disposal. Not Big Carbon, they enhance their profits from polluting for free.
The disinformation campaign at the core of Old Energy's current strategy, like the bogus op-ed in Newsweek, lays bare the tactics of Koch Propaganda & Pollution.
Question, if burning natural gas produces half the CO2 of oil, why is Detroit not building all cars and trucks to run on natural gas?
22
The battle has been going on for years across the nation, Paul.
As examples, Governor John Kasich, Ohio, signed bill 310 that froze energy standards for 2 years. The legislation was supported by "Americans for Prosperity" and ALEC. Ohio's legislature also established a panel to consider repealing energy standards permanently with "Energy Freedom Act," legislation written by ALEC.
In Kansas "Westar Energy" asked "Kansas Corporation Commission" to allow it to charge a higher rate to customers who generate their own electricity from alternate energy sources. "Americans for Prosperity Kansas," supported by Koch Brothers funding, wanted to end the renewable standards passed in 2009 that required 10% of electricity provided by utilities companies come from renewable energy sources, increase to 15% in 2016, and again, by 2020, to 20%.
ALEC wanted Arizona regulators to impose a monthly fee of $50 to $100 on net-metering customers.
"Americans for Prosperity Florida" is attempted to stop citizens from repealing legislation that Florida law that requires customers to buy energy from utility companies. APF is funded by the Koch brothers.
Meanwhile our peers in Europe are closing in on achieving 2020 goals for use of renewable sources. 3 nations there have already met those standards.
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/03/13/3-eu-countries-already-hit-2020-rene...
Could be what Conservatives mean by American exceptionalism.
.
As examples, Governor John Kasich, Ohio, signed bill 310 that froze energy standards for 2 years. The legislation was supported by "Americans for Prosperity" and ALEC. Ohio's legislature also established a panel to consider repealing energy standards permanently with "Energy Freedom Act," legislation written by ALEC.
In Kansas "Westar Energy" asked "Kansas Corporation Commission" to allow it to charge a higher rate to customers who generate their own electricity from alternate energy sources. "Americans for Prosperity Kansas," supported by Koch Brothers funding, wanted to end the renewable standards passed in 2009 that required 10% of electricity provided by utilities companies come from renewable energy sources, increase to 15% in 2016, and again, by 2020, to 20%.
ALEC wanted Arizona regulators to impose a monthly fee of $50 to $100 on net-metering customers.
"Americans for Prosperity Florida" is attempted to stop citizens from repealing legislation that Florida law that requires customers to buy energy from utility companies. APF is funded by the Koch brothers.
Meanwhile our peers in Europe are closing in on achieving 2020 goals for use of renewable sources. 3 nations there have already met those standards.
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/03/13/3-eu-countries-already-hit-2020-rene...
Could be what Conservatives mean by American exceptionalism.
.
390
Some Republicans use the fact that, in the beginning, a number of companies producing solar technology folded, to state that the technology as such is not viable, thus a domain of dreamers. Any information that details advances in this area is pushed aside as propaganda or as outright lies of those who have a vested interest in solar energy. There's just nothing anyone can do to make that sort of people accept these advances, except to keep on developing solar technology, using it, and finally proving that it is effective.
9
I've been reading about solar power since I was a child. I am almost 60. There is STILL no practical solar power that would heat my home (in a cold, miserable Midwestern area) and keep me warm in winter -- let alone cool in summer -- the only application I ever saw for solar that "worked" were solar swimming pool heaters....in Florida.
It's weird to hear it talked about as if it was a legitimate source of power. It isn't. And it's very costly, and usually can only supply a home with limited heat or hot water, and only when the sun is shining. (Which in Ohio, is almost never.)
The solar panels on the White House? Lordy, that was in the late 70s. They had to be very primitive and likely did almost nothing to save energy. Some solar systems cost more to install than they would save $$$ in a decade.
It's weird to hear it talked about as if it was a legitimate source of power. It isn't. And it's very costly, and usually can only supply a home with limited heat or hot water, and only when the sun is shining. (Which in Ohio, is almost never.)
The solar panels on the White House? Lordy, that was in the late 70s. They had to be very primitive and likely did almost nothing to save energy. Some solar systems cost more to install than they would save $$$ in a decade.
1
I've read several times here that solar power is only good for heating swimming pools. That's ludicrous and sounds like a sound bite provided by big oil or the GOP. Here in Massachusetts (where we don't have so many swimming pools) it heats water tanks, provides full electricity on some days, even some left over to plug in the electric car. If people in Florida were allowed to use it, (it's prohibitively expensive there thanks to anti solar legislation) it would provide full electricity for homes. Let's stop the ridiculous "heating pools" comment.
16
Here in sunny southern California solar panels on the roof can meet a single family dwellings electrical needs year round.
We have friends who have had the panel for year and LOVE them. We have a technician coming to look at our house tomorrow.
We have friends who have had the panel for year and LOVE them. We have a technician coming to look at our house tomorrow.
4
Oil for so long has been a treasure
That keeps the Koch Brothers at leisure
Now many have sinned
With Solar and Wind
To Kochs an intolerable measure.
Their Think Tanks are churning out tripe
Outrageously pre-doctored hype,
Aided on the whole
In their candidate role
By the Jeb Bush and Rubio type!
That keeps the Koch Brothers at leisure
Now many have sinned
With Solar and Wind
To Kochs an intolerable measure.
Their Think Tanks are churning out tripe
Outrageously pre-doctored hype,
Aided on the whole
In their candidate role
By the Jeb Bush and Rubio type!
81
Larry Eisenberg...the Kochs are churning out hype, tripe and gelt! They've spent 900 million on the campaign at least, already. But their Chosen One, Scott Walker dropped out.
Satirist Andy Borowitz in the New Yorker said the Koch brothers are demanding Walker pay every penny of that 900m back--by their deadline, and they don't care where he gets it from! Consequences?
Satirist Andy Borowitz in the New Yorker said the Koch brothers are demanding Walker pay every penny of that 900m back--by their deadline, and they don't care where he gets it from! Consequences?
4
Let's play 'SAT/ACT' a moment
A. Conserve, B Conservation, C. Conservative.
One of these words does not belong with the others, can you guess which one?
Dr Krugman says fossil fuel gets subsidies via the tax code and that is indeed true but big oil in the 2000's and into the present is getting a huge subsidy, $4 Trillion is about what we have spent on Iraq and related fallout. Worth reminding republicans told us the cost would be $50 Billion -- got that one a bit wrong as usual.
What amazes me is that evangelicals and the religious are not out in front of being stewards of the world and taking care of it. They aren't, does their god really want us to destroy the very air we breathe? Every state including remote Alaska has at least one lake where fishing is allowed that also has a warning that pregnant women and children should not eat the fish due to mercury from coal burning. Every state, let's repeat that and ponder a moment. In my state such a warning is on nearly all the lakes including one at the very top of the water table (which must be at full pool this morning).
That cost to sports and food supply is a hidden subsidy to the fossil fuel industry. Now of course we cannot do away with fossil fuel for quite a while but it makes no sense to me to see so called christians (right wing) defending poisoning their children and grandchild.
A. Conserve, B Conservation, C. Conservative.
One of these words does not belong with the others, can you guess which one?
Dr Krugman says fossil fuel gets subsidies via the tax code and that is indeed true but big oil in the 2000's and into the present is getting a huge subsidy, $4 Trillion is about what we have spent on Iraq and related fallout. Worth reminding republicans told us the cost would be $50 Billion -- got that one a bit wrong as usual.
What amazes me is that evangelicals and the religious are not out in front of being stewards of the world and taking care of it. They aren't, does their god really want us to destroy the very air we breathe? Every state including remote Alaska has at least one lake where fishing is allowed that also has a warning that pregnant women and children should not eat the fish due to mercury from coal burning. Every state, let's repeat that and ponder a moment. In my state such a warning is on nearly all the lakes including one at the very top of the water table (which must be at full pool this morning).
That cost to sports and food supply is a hidden subsidy to the fossil fuel industry. Now of course we cannot do away with fossil fuel for quite a while but it makes no sense to me to see so called christians (right wing) defending poisoning their children and grandchild.
235
As for evangelicals and the religious, some of their esoteric doctrines are part of the picture we don't always see. Killing off the environment makes no sense for those of us non-religious who are not anticipating being "raptured" in the near future. But those who hold those beliefs beg to differ. I have heard that some extreme religions preach that the earth must be destroyed along with our democracy before Jesus can return. Another American (Mormon) religion holds that all the children born in a pre-existant spirit world must be born into mortality before Jesus can come again, overpopulation and the environment be damned. Some, if not most, of the religious reluctance to save the environment has to do with these anti-science belief systems that promise eternal life in exchange for destruction of life here.
Makes no sense to most of us who are grounded in the real world, but those people VOTE in bigger numbers. After all, they are invested in that heavenly reward and are rarely dissuaded by facts.
Makes no sense to most of us who are grounded in the real world, but those people VOTE in bigger numbers. After all, they are invested in that heavenly reward and are rarely dissuaded by facts.
9
There is an explanation for the lack of concern on the religious right. Some(not all) believe that in the final times God will destroy the earth in a fiery conflagration. So why take care of doomed goods?
2
Even remote alpine lakes in places like Olympic National Park are home to mercury-contaminated trout (mercury from coal-burning plants in China and/or the last remaining coal-burning plant here in Washington State). Sad.
On a brighter note, I live in one of the cloudiest cities in the lower 48, yet I'm seeing more an more rooftop solar panels show up on local homes every year!
On a brighter note, I live in one of the cloudiest cities in the lower 48, yet I'm seeing more an more rooftop solar panels show up on local homes every year!
In the past year China has installed almost as much solar capacity as the entire solar energy capacity in the US. More than cheap, secure, low polluting energy, China's commitment to solar means they will have an energy and technology advantage over the US for generations to come. Even more, the centralized US power grid is one of the greatest security threats to the US in the era of cyber warfare, exposing the nation to major blackouts caused by a handful of keystrokes. Rooftop energy is one of the greatest defense initiatives we could devise.
GOP response? Increase subsidies to fossil fuels and, in some States, raise taxes on solar energy. The party of national defense and economic growth is assaulting our technological advantage while further exposing us to the ravages of 21st century warfare.
GOP response? Increase subsidies to fossil fuels and, in some States, raise taxes on solar energy. The party of national defense and economic growth is assaulting our technological advantage while further exposing us to the ravages of 21st century warfare.
687
Power -- as in electricity -- generated by the people, for the people -- sounds almost like democracy.
7
brad - The " party of national defense and economic growth " has revealed themselves to be mostly concerned about their own economic growth, and couldn't care less about anyone else; they're driven by ' rentiers ' who do not want competition or even free markets, they want to be protected from competitors and to use their market power to keep out any new entrants, through legislation/regulation/consolidation and any other barriers they can erect.
The party likes the prospects of an entire economy built on the airline industry's model of super-hubs that have captive consumers, a set amount of gate space, and as few airline choices as possible.
The party likes the prospects of an entire economy built on the airline industry's model of super-hubs that have captive consumers, a set amount of gate space, and as few airline choices as possible.
8
Why limit ourselves to solar, which does have a limitation in that the grid has some difficulty managing the fluctuations of power due to changing light quality? The same goes for wind. There will be a need to majorly restructure the national grid and invest in energy storage approaches to make large scale renewables a serious competitor to fossil fuels, i.e. to move beyond peak plants into base-load plants.
Why not reopen the discussion of nuclear power? Although the problem of nuclear waste remains a stubborn issue, the amount of truly challenging waste generated by a nuclear plant can be measured in kilograms vs megatons. Nuclear does have the ability to meaningfully expand base load by virtue of being able to provide consistent output levels.
Why not reopen the discussion of nuclear power? Although the problem of nuclear waste remains a stubborn issue, the amount of truly challenging waste generated by a nuclear plant can be measured in kilograms vs megatons. Nuclear does have the ability to meaningfully expand base load by virtue of being able to provide consistent output levels.
30
Ronnie tore the solar panels off the White House. Others may blame George W Bush for Iraq and Afghanistan but all that blood and treasure that was lost I lay at the feet of the electorate that put a Luddite in Charge of a nation that was leading the world into the future. It is almost thirty years since Reagan removed the solar panels from the White House and dismantled America's research and development program.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carter-white-house-solar-panel...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carter-white-house-solar-panel...
747
Thanks so much for that reminder about the fate of the Carter White House solar panels and the link to the Scientific American article.
What gets lost in discussions about economics, the environment, etc., is this -- Ronald Reagan's removal of the panels was as much a cultural act as anything.
Most of the right wing's hostility toward renewable energy -- and public transportation as well -- comes not just from economic solidarity with Big Oil and Big Auto.
Simply put, solar panels and trains are perceived as things that liberals want. And to conservatives, that's reason enough to oppose them.
What gets lost in discussions about economics, the environment, etc., is this -- Ronald Reagan's removal of the panels was as much a cultural act as anything.
Most of the right wing's hostility toward renewable energy -- and public transportation as well -- comes not just from economic solidarity with Big Oil and Big Auto.
Simply put, solar panels and trains are perceived as things that liberals want. And to conservatives, that's reason enough to oppose them.
378
It is all about who pays the most in political campaign contributions!
6
I am glad you mention public transportation because that is the too often ignored part of the solution to Peak Oil/Limits to Growth and Climate Change!
Even if ALL our electricity was renewably generated 70% of US oil usage and 35% of US greenhouse emissions are directly due to Auto Addiction. Now with the Volkswagen diesel emissions scandal Auto Addiction is also responsible for a lot more pollution than we had thought. Green public transit allows citizens in Europe and Japan to spend 1/3rd of what Americans spend on transportation. Europe and Japan also have less greenhouse emissions due to their extensive public transit and support for walking and bicycling. Meanwhile in New Jersey where our Koch funded Gov Christie has been stealing funds from Green public transit for years to waste $7 billion on new highway lanes, Auto Addiction is now the biggest contributor to our green emissions at 47%!
Despite the propaganda fed us from the Auto/Oil Lobby for years the US COULD run Green Transit if we chose - 79% of Americans already live in urbanized areas and a Brookings study in 2011 found that already with our anemic public transit that 70% of Americans in the top 100 Metro areas live only 3/4ths miile from a transit stop!
New Jersey in particular is the most densely populated US state and more densely populated than China and thus should be a leader in Green transit. Yet Gov Christie just cut the last trains on 5 of the Rail Lines while funneling $300 million to roads.
Even if ALL our electricity was renewably generated 70% of US oil usage and 35% of US greenhouse emissions are directly due to Auto Addiction. Now with the Volkswagen diesel emissions scandal Auto Addiction is also responsible for a lot more pollution than we had thought. Green public transit allows citizens in Europe and Japan to spend 1/3rd of what Americans spend on transportation. Europe and Japan also have less greenhouse emissions due to their extensive public transit and support for walking and bicycling. Meanwhile in New Jersey where our Koch funded Gov Christie has been stealing funds from Green public transit for years to waste $7 billion on new highway lanes, Auto Addiction is now the biggest contributor to our green emissions at 47%!
Despite the propaganda fed us from the Auto/Oil Lobby for years the US COULD run Green Transit if we chose - 79% of Americans already live in urbanized areas and a Brookings study in 2011 found that already with our anemic public transit that 70% of Americans in the top 100 Metro areas live only 3/4ths miile from a transit stop!
New Jersey in particular is the most densely populated US state and more densely populated than China and thus should be a leader in Green transit. Yet Gov Christie just cut the last trains on 5 of the Rail Lines while funneling $300 million to roads.
14
The dinosaurs of the Republican party that subvert the change from an economy that is Chernobyl-like in its dependence on dangerous fossil fuels to an economy based on renewable energy sow the seeds of destruction of our planetary habitat. The evidence is all around us in flooding, rising sea levels and massive hurricanes. None so blind as those who cannot see.
54
Robert.....The Gop dinosaurs are themselves fossils--remnants of an ancient political structure, while the modern world long evolved far ahead. Will these fossils serve as fuel for far- future eras? As warnings of what not to do? Or at least fuel for a revolution in our backward nation--someday?
5
I think the line you're looking for is "There are none so blind as those who will not see." (The difference is crucial.)
10
For almost all of recorded history, humans and domestic animals did all the work (work as defined in physics) of feeding, sheltering, and clothing humans.
About 300 years ago, people figured out how to use fossilised carbon to do some of the work. Today, almost all the work done to feed, shelter, and clothe humans is done by burning fossils. And recently, a few very bright people have figured out that burning millions of years' worth of fossilised carbon every month isn't the brightest of ways to feed, shelter, and clothe ourselves. (These bright people use polysyllabic words like 'unsustainable', so only a tiny minority listen to them.)
Meanwhile, there is lots of lucre promulgating the position that more dinosaurs are dying and fossilising than we're burning, and it's really stupid to switch from fossils to anything else.
About 300 years ago, people figured out how to use fossilised carbon to do some of the work. Today, almost all the work done to feed, shelter, and clothe humans is done by burning fossils. And recently, a few very bright people have figured out that burning millions of years' worth of fossilised carbon every month isn't the brightest of ways to feed, shelter, and clothe ourselves. (These bright people use polysyllabic words like 'unsustainable', so only a tiny minority listen to them.)
Meanwhile, there is lots of lucre promulgating the position that more dinosaurs are dying and fossilising than we're burning, and it's really stupid to switch from fossils to anything else.
18
It was the British who did that. By 1700 they had burned all the wood available to heat them during the winter (at a population of around 5-7 million). So they started burning coal. When the easy coal was mined, then they started having to dig deeper to get coal, and those mines started flooding. The flooding required pumps, and the pumps required power to remove water. So they used the coal to run the pumps to drain the mines so they could extract more coal, and then the industrial age was on.
They had already been automating cloth production using water mills as power but once the steam engine came available, tens of thousands of factories emerged that used coal powered steam engines instead. Meanwhile they learned how to use coal to make steel, and to put steam engines on wheels and ships, and the rest is history.
They had already been automating cloth production using water mills as power but once the steam engine came available, tens of thousands of factories emerged that used coal powered steam engines instead. Meanwhile they learned how to use coal to make steel, and to put steam engines on wheels and ships, and the rest is history.
4
The proponents of Big Oil are desperate. The price of a barrel of oil has dropped by 50% over the last year, wreaking havoc on the big oil producers here and in the Middle East.
It costs Saudi Arabia $2/barrel so they can still compete in this new environment, but the US, Brazil and Russia are taking a beating.
Today, Saudi Arabia has no choice but to drop their prices and flood the market to snuff out any high cost producers and undercut everyone. Can you imagine that?? Saudi Arabia and other Middle East countries, who set artificially higher prices since the 1970’s are in a price war to regain back their market share. How poetic is that??
So, more than ever, this industry is hurting in the worst possible way to stay afloat while other sources of oil and/or energy are stealing their market share and their profits. The fossilized GOP are going to bat for them, but technology and alternative energy resources have changed the playing field forever. They are rowing against the tide which is falling off a cliff. Good riddance to both of them…
It costs Saudi Arabia $2/barrel so they can still compete in this new environment, but the US, Brazil and Russia are taking a beating.
Today, Saudi Arabia has no choice but to drop their prices and flood the market to snuff out any high cost producers and undercut everyone. Can you imagine that?? Saudi Arabia and other Middle East countries, who set artificially higher prices since the 1970’s are in a price war to regain back their market share. How poetic is that??
So, more than ever, this industry is hurting in the worst possible way to stay afloat while other sources of oil and/or energy are stealing their market share and their profits. The fossilized GOP are going to bat for them, but technology and alternative energy resources have changed the playing field forever. They are rowing against the tide which is falling off a cliff. Good riddance to both of them…
161
But...but...but...
I've been following this since I was a teenager and the Saudi oil embargo and all I've heard is how there is now Peak Oil and it's running out, and will cost $1000 a barrel and $20 a gallon, and we'll have to drive electric cars.
None of that has remotely happened. In fact, the opposite has happened.
If the left is this accurate on their predictions and hysteria, it is no small wonder people vote GOP.
I've been following this since I was a teenager and the Saudi oil embargo and all I've heard is how there is now Peak Oil and it's running out, and will cost $1000 a barrel and $20 a gallon, and we'll have to drive electric cars.
None of that has remotely happened. In fact, the opposite has happened.
If the left is this accurate on their predictions and hysteria, it is no small wonder people vote GOP.
1
I think the Saudis see the writing on the wall for oil and want to sell as much of theirs while they still can.
3
Concerned Citizen,
I've mentioned nothing of what you just said.
I've mentioned nothing of what you just said.
4
Krugman points out rightly that polluting fossil fuels cause damage beyond global warming, whose denial is so dear to Republican hearts. He also makes the point that alternative energy companies donate 56% of their campaign donations to Democrats. Aren't there any potential allies among the other 44% ? Hopefully some of the GOP voters will come to their senses by next year's election. Hopefully...
8
The invention & development of new technologies has historically been the inflection point for the advancement and development of leading economies.
In the 18th Century it was the development of steam technology and the mechanization of textile production that accomplished the industrialization of England and New England.
In the 2nd half of the 19th Century it was the development of steel, electronic and chemical industries that help propel Germany from a pastoral existence into passing Engliand up in industrial production.
In the first half of the 20th century it was the development of internal combustion engine and mass production methods that pushed the United States far to the top of the global economy.
In the last half of the 20th century the transistor and printed circuits have helped push Asia forward - first with Japan and Taiwan. South Korea ceased upon the development of cell phones to help it push forward, and help Korean electronics companies surpass the Japanese.
Technology change is THE BIG opportunity that countries eager to advance eagerly wait for. This is why China is investing heavy in electronic cars and solar/wind energy production methods.
Hopefully massive investment in renewable energy infrastructure will be part of President Sanders overall trillion dollar infrastructure plan = otherwise, like England in the 20th century, we risk being a has been economic power in a bold new future.
In the 18th Century it was the development of steam technology and the mechanization of textile production that accomplished the industrialization of England and New England.
In the 2nd half of the 19th Century it was the development of steel, electronic and chemical industries that help propel Germany from a pastoral existence into passing Engliand up in industrial production.
In the first half of the 20th century it was the development of internal combustion engine and mass production methods that pushed the United States far to the top of the global economy.
In the last half of the 20th century the transistor and printed circuits have helped push Asia forward - first with Japan and Taiwan. South Korea ceased upon the development of cell phones to help it push forward, and help Korean electronics companies surpass the Japanese.
Technology change is THE BIG opportunity that countries eager to advance eagerly wait for. This is why China is investing heavy in electronic cars and solar/wind energy production methods.
Hopefully massive investment in renewable energy infrastructure will be part of President Sanders overall trillion dollar infrastructure plan = otherwise, like England in the 20th century, we risk being a has been economic power in a bold new future.
290
Even as president Sanders can't do anything without a majority Democratic Congress. What do you think the odds are of that happening? Does he have any coattails, does he care about a majority Democratic Congress? Or do you and he believe, like Obama when he first became president, that the GOP will surely cooperate?
4
We can't depend on a future President Bernie Sanders to bring us into the 21st century, in green energy or anything else we badly need. No matter how much enthusiasm he generates, he will be blocked, depend on it.
The industrial revolution based on fossil fuels propelled the US into the world's richest, most powerful nation. But changing to green energy challenges the huge corporate profits based on that. Our political system is now financially dependent on those conglomerates for our lawmakers and president to even run for office. All nicely legalized by Supreme Court blessing with Citizens United.
That's why the US is behind other modern nations in green energy. And the media gives us little publicity on what they're doing, such as in Germany and other countries. Of course they also traditionally spend money on infrastructure and transport repair, which our congress refuses to do. And spend public funds to elect their leaders/lawmakers.
So they start with a different attitude--their corporations don't dominate their society as ours do, but instead can collaborate and show some social responsibility. Even their rw parties collaborate in constructive climate change policy. That would be unheard of here, where the fossilized rw party denies even basic science---reflecting old attitudes like before the Industrial Revolution! Ironic.
The industrial revolution based on fossil fuels propelled the US into the world's richest, most powerful nation. But changing to green energy challenges the huge corporate profits based on that. Our political system is now financially dependent on those conglomerates for our lawmakers and president to even run for office. All nicely legalized by Supreme Court blessing with Citizens United.
That's why the US is behind other modern nations in green energy. And the media gives us little publicity on what they're doing, such as in Germany and other countries. Of course they also traditionally spend money on infrastructure and transport repair, which our congress refuses to do. And spend public funds to elect their leaders/lawmakers.
So they start with a different attitude--their corporations don't dominate their society as ours do, but instead can collaborate and show some social responsibility. Even their rw parties collaborate in constructive climate change policy. That would be unheard of here, where the fossilized rw party denies even basic science---reflecting old attitudes like before the Industrial Revolution! Ironic.
12
Simzap....blocked by Gop congress? Let's expand this. Suppose a authentic liberal Democratic president made no compromises and really fought hard to bring the US up to parity with other advanced countries? Despite the congress. How would public opinion then be led and molded? How would media react? There's much difference of opinion on how much Obama has stood up to the forces of darkness in our congress.
Examples---suppose Obama hadn’t compromised and signed the republican plan that was Obamacare, but held out for better, and insisted on not leaving out 30 million citizens? Suppose he’d demanded that we regulate medical prices, like other nations do, instead of forcing tax payers to subsidize profits?
Suppose Bill Clinton had told congress, No I won’t sign our jobs away with Nafta, and I won’t sign repeal of Glass Steagall financial regulation, or cut welfare for the needy, or expand our prisons to the world's biggest system? What would have happened???? Add to the list.
Let’s speculate.
Examples---suppose Obama hadn’t compromised and signed the republican plan that was Obamacare, but held out for better, and insisted on not leaving out 30 million citizens? Suppose he’d demanded that we regulate medical prices, like other nations do, instead of forcing tax payers to subsidize profits?
Suppose Bill Clinton had told congress, No I won’t sign our jobs away with Nafta, and I won’t sign repeal of Glass Steagall financial regulation, or cut welfare for the needy, or expand our prisons to the world's biggest system? What would have happened???? Add to the list.
Let’s speculate.
3