Breaking- West Antarctic ice sheetin peril

[Toddsterpatriot]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0

Utility executives say the trend has accelerated this year, with several companies signing contracts, known as power purchase agreements, for solar or wind at prices below that of natural gas, especially in the Great Plains and Southwest, where wind and sunlight are abundant.

Those prices were made possible by generous subsidies that could soon diminish or expire, but recent analyses show that even without those subsidies, alternative energies can often compete with traditional sources.

In Texas, Austin Energy signed a deal this spring for 20 years of output from a solar farm at less than 5 cents a kilowatt-hour. In September, the Grand River Dam Authority in Oklahoma announced its approval of a new agreement to buy power from a new wind farm expected to be completed next year. Grand River estimated the deal would save its customers roughly $50 million from the project.

And, also in Oklahoma, American Electric Power ended up tripling the amount of wind power it had originally sought after seeing how low the bids came in last year.

“Wind was on sale — it was a Blue Light Special,” said Jay Godfrey, managing director of renewable energy for the company. He noted that Oklahoma, unlike many states, did not require utilities to buy power from renewable sources.

“We were doing it because it made sense for our ratepayers,” he said.

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

While the subsidies sweeten the pot even more, wind and solar are competing even without them. And this is nearly a year old, solar and wind prices are even lower. In the meantime, grid scale batteries are being built, and rapidly coming down in price.

“Wind was on sale — it was a Blue Light Special,”

I wouldn't want to buy unreliable energy for very much either.

 

[mamooth]

Spell out those coal subsidies.

1. The government having to bail out the pension funds. Those funds were supposed to be in a sort of lockbox. The coal companies said "screw that, raid the lockbox, shareholders need profits!". Coal companies go bankrupt, pension funds are gone.

2. Cleanup costs. Coal companies were supposed to put up a bond first that covers any possible cleanup costs. Conservative state governments, flush with "donations", allowed coal companies to "self-bond". That is, put up nothing. Coal companies go bankrupt, government is left with the bill for cleanup costs.

Combined, it's around $25 billion, 50 Solyndras.

The Big Coal Bailout of 2016

 

[depotoo]

This 'hypothesis' has been floating around since at least 2011.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Spell out those coal subsidies.

1. The government having to bail out the pension funds. Those funds were supposed to be in a sort of lockbox. The coal companies said "screw that, raid the lockbox, shareholders need profits!". Coal companies go bankrupt, pension funds are gone.

2. Cleanup costs. Coal companies were supposed to put up a bond first that covers any possible cleanup costs. Conservative state governments, flush with "donations", allowed coal companies to "self-bond". That is, put up nothing. Coal companies go bankrupt, government is left with the bill for cleanup costs.

Combined, it's around $25 billion, 50 Solyndras.

The Big Coal Bailout of 2016

The government having to bail out the pension funds.

Obama said he was going to drive coal companies out of business.
Now it's a subsidy to protect the workers after he succeeds?

 

[mamooth]

Defending pension fund raiding sleaze is a new low even for you. Those pension funds should have been there, bankruptcy or not. They weren't, because of the actions of the people that you so proudly kiss the asses of.

Now, after that deflection has been disposed of, we still have the issue of your hypocrisy here. You know, the way you rage about the small wastes with green energy, and happily ignore the vastly more massive waste with fossil fuels.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Defending pension fund raiding sleaze is a new low even for you. Those pension funds should have been there, bankruptcy or not. They weren't, because of the actions of the people that you so proudly kiss the asses of.

Now, after that deflection has been disposed of, we still have the issue of your hypocrisy here. You know, the way you rage about the small wastes with green energy, and happily ignore the vastly more massive waste with fossil fuels.

Massive waste with actual reliable energy. LOL!
End the real subsidies that "green energy" gets.
End the imaginary subsidies you feel fossil fuels get.

Let's see which energy source increases and which shrinks.
Bring it on.

 

[Old Rocks]

Fine, no depletion allowances on coal or petroleum. And the companies pay for the increase in asthma in the US. There is no depletion of wind or sun. No illnesses caused by their operation.

And the economics are such that wind and solar are both becoming the major new energy, even where not subsidized.

 

[jc456]

aaaaand now for serious responses.....

Seriously, let's waste....err....spend trillions on unreliable energy.
So the climate will stop changing.
Seriously.

Durr.

The private sector is spending it! Solar and wind are first and second most installed sources of energy.

and it hasn't made a bit of difference in the grid. how the fk is that possible matt? How is Ivanhoe going BTW?

 

[jc456]

aaaaand now for serious responses.....

Seriously, let's waste....err....spend trillions on unreliable energy.
So the climate will stop changing.
Seriously.

Durr.

The private sector is spending it! Solar and wind are first and second most installed sources of energy.

Yo, you mean?
Solyndra Scandal
Key coverage of the investigation into Solyndra, the Silicon Valley startup that collapsed, leaving taxpayers liable for $535 million in federal guarantees!!!

"GTP"
View attachment 69684

Solyndra ended up making a surplus overall.

are they still in business?

 

[jc456]

aaaaand now for serious responses.....

Seriously, let's waste....err....spend trillions on unreliable energy.
So the climate will stop changing.
Seriously.

Durr.

The private sector is spending it! Solar and wind are first and second most installed sources of energy.

Yo, you mean?
Solyndra Scandal
Key coverage of the investigation into Solyndra, the Silicon Valley startup that collapsed, leaving taxpayers liable for $535 million in federal guarantees!!!

"GTP"
View attachment 69684

Solyndra ended up making a surplus overall.

And.......

Solyndra Scandal | Full Coverage of Failed Solar Startup - The Washington Post

"Key coverage of the investigation into Solyndra, the Silicon Valley startup that collapsed, leaving taxpayers liable for $535 million in federal guarantees"

 

[jc456]

Spell out those coal subsidies.

1. The government having to bail out the pension funds. Those funds were supposed to be in a sort of lockbox. The coal companies said "screw that, raid the lockbox, shareholders need profits!". Coal companies go bankrupt, pension funds are gone.

2. Cleanup costs. Coal companies were supposed to put up a bond first that covers any possible cleanup costs. Conservative state governments, flush with "donations", allowed coal companies to "self-bond". That is, put up nothing. Coal companies go bankrupt, government is left with the bill for cleanup costs.

Combined, it's around $25 billion, 50 Solyndras.

The Big Coal Bailout of 2016

but, but, but, there is this:
Solyndra Scandal | Full Coverage of Failed Solar Startup - The Washington Post

"Key coverage of the investigation into Solyndra, the Silicon Valley startup that collapsed, leaving taxpayers liable for $535 million in federal guarantees"

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Fox News source:

West Antarctic ice sheet could collapse, causing significant sea level rise, experts warn | Fox News

The study published in the journal Nature this week, cites the impact of greenhouse gas emissions over the coming decades. Collapsing Antarctic ice could cause sea levels to rise more than 3 feet by 2100, say co-authors Rob DeConto, a geoscientist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and David Pollard, a palaeoclimatologist at Pennsylvania State University in University Park.

If emissions continue unabated, the scientists warn, atmospheric warming will soon become a “dominant driver” of ice loss, with prolonged ocean warming delaying its recovery for thousands of years.

Fox doesn't lie remember?

Discuss.....

Just curious...are you going to come back and admit you're wrong when nothing happens?

 

[Dot Com]

its still happening people!!!

 

[Billy_Bob]

aaaaand now for serious responses.....

Seriously, let's waste....err....spend trillions on unreliable energy.
So the climate will stop changing.
Seriously.

Durr.

The private sector is spending it! Solar and wind are first and second most installed sources of energy.

Only due to massive liberal handouts and the destruction of more reliable and inexpensive ways to make reliable energy..

More stupid is not the answer.. and those name plate values you fools like to throw out there, just 24% is viable yet highly unreliable..

Stupid is as stupid does..

 

[Billy_Bob]

its still happening people!!!

Ah... No!

Its all hype and lack of understanding of our climatic system. You do realize that Antarctica has had a major increase in snow pack at the top of those glaciers... but alas you dont have a dam clue about what makes glaciers..

 

[mamooth]

"Key coverage of the investigation into Solyndra, the Silicon Valley startup that collapsed, leaving taxpayers liable for $535 million in federal guarantees"

Yet,as a whole, that loan program made a profit.

Why? Because other loan recipients paid the money back, with interest.

According to the deniers here, no bank should ever make a loan, because someone might default. Yet banks do make loans. And make profits, even though some borrowers do default.

 

[Dot Com]

The standard "YABUT SOLYNDRA!!!" denier response is tiresome and irrelevant

 

[jc456]

"Key coverage of the investigation into Solyndra, the Silicon Valley startup that collapsed, leaving taxpayers liable for $535 million in federal guarantees"

Yet,as a whole, that loan program made a profit.

Why? Because other loan recipients paid the money back, with interest.

According to the deniers here, no bank should ever make a loan, because someone might default. Yet banks do make loans. And make profits, even though some borrowers do default.

What loan?

 

[Manonthestreet]

And that list can probably be considerably longer as even I remember some not included

 

[Billy_Bob]

"Key coverage of the investigation into Solyndra, the Silicon Valley startup that collapsed, leaving taxpayers liable for $535 million in federal guarantees"

Yet,as a whole, that loan program made a profit.

Why? Because other loan recipients paid the money back, with interest.

According to the deniers here, no bank should ever make a loan, because someone might default. Yet banks do make loans. And make profits, even though some borrowers do default.

What loan?

What half a billion dollars? pocket change for liberals?