E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Natural Resources Defense Council
We hear a lot of talk about the need to reduce the nation’s dependence on costly fossil fuels, but what’s actually being done about it?
The Natural Resources Defense Council has created an interactive map showing where some major types of renewable energy facilities have either already been built in the United States, or are being planned.
Want to know if your air conditioner may soon be powered by the sun? The new graphic will show exactly where the new solar facilities are planned, who is constructing them and what the capacity is. It also allows you to zero in on your state or even zip code.
The list includes wind, solar, advanced biofuels and geothermal facilities, as well as biodigesters. That’s energy based on animal manure.
The NRDC said it didn’t include hydropower in the chart because it was originally focusing on new renewable energy technologies, and there currently aren’t any new hydropower facilities under construction. However, the nonprofit environmental advocate said it may add those down the road.
Hydroelectric power is currently one of the major sources of renewable energy, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Although portions of the map are crammed with wind turbines and other symbols, for now at least renewable energy is still a very small portion of our overall energy consumption.
Renewable energy accounted for just 8 percent of our overall energy consumption in 2010, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Nuclear energy accounted for another approximately 9 percent, while coal, petroleum and natural gas made up the rest.
Leave a Comment:
While Bush II was in charge, the USA:
1. Became the number one producer of wind & solar power in the world...
2. Lowered the use of coal for power generation by 10% from over 50% total to less than 45% total...
3. Electrical power from the sun (thermal & panel) generation was being developed and promoted...
4. The Volt was being developed by GM...
5. The USA was lowering their dependence on foreign oil:
a. Developing NG resources and new technologies that made the USA number one in NG reserves and cut the price by 50%...
b. Helping develop crude oil resources (Thunder Horse) that helped to lower crude oil price to $37+USD a barrel during Jan 2008...
What has Obama done???
1. Political kick-backs that have resulted in solar manufactures going bankrupt...
2. Handing out environmental wavers to oil drillers, resulting in the largest oil spill in US history...
3. Closed the US to new drilling and adding EPA restrictions that have resulted in crude oil averaging over $90-USA a barrel. While Obama has been in office...
This is what the environmentalist and Democrats are giving YOU... Ha! Ha!
@ AC. If our President had any real power within the scope of his position as President I beleive that a President may be able to influence these types of things.
The things you typed have very little to do with the hand of the president. Many of the things you typed are in regards to what private businesses were doing when they thought that their investments in the derivitives market were going to pay off big & when they had government subsidies/tax holidays/ etc.
There in lies the problem when any manufacturing company/government has half of their balance sheet in the black because of projected earnings on investments. Whoops!
I suppose you would blame the economy on Obama as well..... We can thank Bush for war we are in and have been in for over 10 years....and the state of our economy.... Open you eyes, bush FAMILY is the biggest joke in american history
dirty burger,
Watch this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivmL-lXNy64
Then research - Brooksley Born (The Warning) and Barney Frank's involvment in protecting Freddie & Fannie...
Dec 2001 the USA & UK turned the Afghanistan conflict to the UN and 52 other countries...
It was Obama that changed the 'Chain of Command' that placed the USA back in control. He then doubled the US Troop strengths - TWICE. This was when the CIA was stating that there were less than 100-Al Qaida in Afghanistan...
You need to do your homework. Most of what you have said is false.
Nice try, republi-shill... I mean, ACR. If only bush could have done those wonderful things without getting us into two wars that cost the country trillions to do it.
Solyndra: If it's true then deal out the punishment.
The oil spill was a result of bush era oil policy. The result of the spill (the gulf is my back yard) was tighter regulations on the oil industry which you are now complaining about. Idiots like you complaining about regulations was what caused the oil spill to begin with.
The republicans are keeping the economy in the crapper so they can try to win 2012 rather than come up with a solution WITH the democrats.
Americans suffer so the pub's can try and win back the football. That's EVIL but what do they care? They're completely insulated.
What are the republicans doing for YOU...and the jobless in this country?
Wow, GWB must have been quite a president. Most of your points are not accurate.
How Bush Pushed Gasoline Prices Sky High
By Katherine Yurica
On March 5, 2003, Senator Carl Levin, the Ranking Minority Member of the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, released a report prepared by the minority staff that reveals why gasoline prices soared under the Bush administration. It has to do with the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserves (SPR) and some odd decisions by the Department of Energy (DOE) after consulting with White House officials.
According to the Senate Report, the Bush administration added forty million barrels of oil to the nation’s reserves in 2002. That wouldn’t be a problem in and of it self. But the purchases represented an extreme change in energy policy; they were made in a strong market, with a tight supply of oil, which increased demand, which in turn pushed up the gasoline prices to their highest levels in twelve years.
The Senate report said in a one-month period in mid 2002 the Bush administration purchases caused crude oil prices to soar, raising the cost of heating oil by 13%, jet fuel by 10% and diesel fuel by 8%. The bottom line was the Bush policy change cost citizens between $500 million and $1 billion.
When crude oil jumps from $20 a barrel to $30, the Senate report says, the costs to U.S. taxpayers are an additional $1 million per day. “Over three months, the additional cost of filling the SPR approached $100 million,” which will ultimately be borne by U.S. taxpayers.
Why did Bush do it? For one thing, he was advised to do it. It has to do with the secret National Energy Policy advisory group headed by Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney has steadfastly refused to release the names of those who advised the administration on energy matters. However, according to an article published in the Sunday Herald in Scotland (October 6, 2002), by Neil Mackay, it was former Secretary of State, James Baker who personally carried an advisory report to Cheney in April of 2001. Assembled at the James A. Baker Institute for Public Policy of Rice University, the task force consisted of oil and energy executives. The report, Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century is referred to simply as the “Baker Report” or “report” below.
The report advised the new president, “At a minimum the government should aim to fill all of the nearly 700 million barrels of [reserve] capacity it currently has available.” Later, the National Energy Policy report recommended that the President wait until exchanged SPR barrels were returned and then he should determine whether offshore Gulf of Mexico royalty oil deposits to the SPR should be resumed. So after September 11, 2001, George W. Bush vowed to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserves (SPR) to capacity.
The Baker report was not irresponsible, it also warned the president, “One problem with trying to refill the reserve at this time when markets are strong is that any purchases made by the U.S. government would add to the current tight supply.” In other words, prices would go up!
At one point, the Baker report recommended that purchases of reserve additions be accomplished through direct “budgetary allocations.”
Trying to teach a new president the facts on SPR oil rights and wrongs must have been a heady proposition. There were many object lessons in which to point. The Baker report singled President Bill Clinton’s use of his “discretionary authority to lease oil to the market on a time-swap or exchange basis” as an example of a no-no. First, according to the Baker experts, Clinton’s exchanges reduced the size of the SPR at a time when more oil might have been needed. Next, the report chided, a president must not earn “far less in interest” than he could have, by using better methods. Perhaps Clinton’s biggest faux pas according to the Baker experts is that he used the drain-down of the reserves “to address winter heating-oil inventory concerns,” which indeed reduced heating oil from $37 to $31 per barrel. That was a big no-no. The Baker report advises a president must not use the SPR as “a market buffer stock to damp prices and price volatility.” (Translation: A president must not help the poor to heat their homes at a reasonable price at the expense of oil company profit taking.)
Hence in the National Energy Policy report, the NEPD Group “recommends that the President reaffirm that the SPR is designed for addressing an imminent or actual disruption in oil supplies, and not for managing prices.” (At page 8-17.)
That recommendation signaled a significant policy change: it denied the president the right to withdraw oil at times when prices are unusually high due to manipulation of the market.
What were the superior choices left for the President? The report advises taking advantage of “the market’s forward price structure…if the market structure were backwardated, with future prices lower than current prices, the government would be able to replenish the reserve with more oil than it had leased on an auction basis. If the market structure were in contango, with future prices higher than prompt prices, the government could lease its cheaper spare storage capacity to industry, thereby also providing revenue to build government-owned reserves at a later time.”
But the method the Bush administration chose was to fill the SPR without regard to crude oil prices at all but simply at a constant rate of speed. The result was extremely high prices for gasoline and increased charges to be born by the taxpayers. The Bush administration denies this. But the method they chose did not add any additional reserve oil to the nation’s strategic supply. So why do it? Oil companies were happy, after all oilmen contributed $26.7 million to Bush’s campaign in 2000 and another $18 million for the 2002 election.
Another possible reason is this: The only way to get oil companies willing to make investments in drilling new sources of oil is to keep oil prices high. The nice thing about this methodology is that criticism can be so easily deflected as a White House spokesman did in a recent interview, by claiming the “purchases were for national security reasons.”
Whatever the motivation, this much is clear: American citizens had to pay and are still paying a hefty price for gasoline and home heating oil. In the end, regardless of the lip service Mr. Bush may offer to the American people on how he is benefiting all citizens, the facts show he benefits those corporations who made large contributions to his campaigns
Hey AC,
You do realize that the reason why oil dropped to $37 a barrel was because the global economy hit the worst recession since the depression, not because Bush improved oil production. BTW it hit $37 in Dec 2008, not Jan.
Of course, I guess we can give some credit to Bush for causing the recession that dropped the price of oil. So, way to go Bush! Way to tank the global economy so we can have cheap oil.
Everyone should be deeply concerned about the so-called renewable energies if they are being constructed in our wild, natural ecosystems. The new energies are only green and are of value -- if they are installed and placed where people actually live and not kill the living, physical body of the Earth or her ecosystems for dead solar panel fields and windmill factories.
Obama is killing our southwestern, desert ecosystems for dead solar panels. Killing ecosystems for any reason, whether it is houses, cities or oil rigs and oil spills is kin to dropping a bomb on that part of the Earth.
Ecosystems and the biological diversity that create them are a stable, regulated climate, the atmosphere, the nitrogen cycle, the hydrological system, and ecosystems are the natural sequesters and what takes care of Earth's heat trapping gases!!!
The soil, the plants, all take care of C02 and methane. Once the soil is disturbed and the vegetation removed, these stored heat trapping gases will be released back into the atmosphere, increasing man's carbon footprint, defeating the purpose of so-called alternatives.
Deforestation or removal of the plants heats up and dries out the climate as vegetation evapotranspires cooling water vapor that cools the leaves, the soil and the surrounding area. Science has many examples of the climate becoming hotter and drier upon the removal of the vegetation.
And ecosystems are the homes/habitat, food, shelter, cover and nurseries for the biological diversity that creates and sustains all ecosystems. The strands in the web of all life!
AC Robertson,
Did you look at the map? California has more renewable sources of energy in place than the rest of the country combined. What exactly do you think Bush had to do with that? We're the leading edge because of climate and because the folks here embraced the idea and the politicians went along with it. Don't you think that if the federal government had lead, other states would also be further along?
Dirty Burger: Here is another one for you to watch and, invite some of your same minded friends. They too need to see this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiGg8D4hFLc
Asking for facts from AC-Roberts is like trying to get blood from a stone. That guy loves his conspiracies and fact-less accusations. He must spend at least 6 hours a day here minimum, trying to spin anything and everything against Obama.
Hey AC, whatever happened to all that Kenyan birth certificate crap you were spewing a year ago? Still believe that? Hey, you still believe Obama is leading Al Qaeda in a secret muslim-socialist take over?
And what do Republicans offer? \A big fat NO to everything. Michigan is a prime example to wind energy. The Republicans want a state ban!!! You are only good for saying NO to this president, to the environment - but you sure like to make money and keep it and fail at being responsible.
Most of those things listed that happened during the Bush Jr. administration was not due to anything Bush Jr. did, they were the work of others. The Volt project, for example, was started in 2006, inspired by the success of the Tesla Roadster and entirely a GM executive decision. Same for efforts to increase the use of wind power and solar, and reduce coal use. The downturn in oil imports mirrors rising prices and the decline in the economy - though I guess you could blame Bush Jr. for that.
To be fair, Bush Jr. did sign the auto company bailout that saved the Volt project, and signed the electric vehicle tax credit, and signed the ATVM loan program that is now funding production facilities for new EVs - then turned those programs over to the following administration to carry out.
The Teapublicans have been trying to "blame Obama" for all those things (as if they were somehow "bad" LOL), but both Bush Jr. and Obama should get credit.
California is on the leading edge all right. Unfortunately that edge is a cliff above the biggest financial chasm this side of Athens. California is the state that wants it all even if they can't pay for it.
That's great but the problem is that there are a few groups of people and individuals that bought land with shale oil. They will write and pass legislation to reduce funding/subsidies for any renewable resource so that those monies may be allocated toward their profit venture. Also, manstreaming the Solyndra issue is their campaign ad so to speak.
Please don't get the wrong idea here. I am not for any government subsidies or grants etc. Big brother over stepped his boundary many years ago. I am worried about the environment in these 'fracking" areas. If you live in an area where shale oil is being extracted please speak out, your voice needs to be heard.
The problem with NG fracking is the disposal of the drilling mud and the fracking compounds...
The NG migrating into ground-water tables has been a problem for generations. Long before fracking was developed or NG drilling was wide-spread...
You are right - The largest environmental concern should be the development of 'Tar Sands' and the oil shale deposits...
You don't even have to be in the area where, for instance, Chesapeake Energy Corporation is fracking. Seems in early 2011, one of their wells in NorthEast Pennsylvania had a 'small' spill of fracking fluids that eventually seeped into the streams and rivers that feed into the Susquehanna River, the source of drinking water for millions of people, some of whom live hundreds of miles from where the fracking is taking place.
The wind industry is about to start beating its drum again. Subsidies and other financial legislation are about to expire and that means the industry must push to have this stuff renewed or face layoffs, uncertainty etc. This happens every 3-4 years. A lot of these wind projects are rushing to begin or complete certain phases of their construction to take advantage of these financial incentives. Of course, it helps to have presidential elections around the corner.
I absolutely support this kind of technology, but it will go nowhere without its reliance on tax subsidies, inability to stop big oil/gas lobbying, little private investment, and a significant federal renewable energy standard (RES). Fortunately, many states have enacted their own renewable portfolio standards, but w/o a federal RES its full potential will never be realized in my opinion.
The oil/gas industry is and will be king until the wells run dry and their lobbyists have deep pockets. Fracking is dangerous. Take it from someone who worked for Halliburton on a fracking crew years ago. Those chemicals leave the nastiest blisters/rashes on your feet or wherever you are exposed and we didn't wear ventilators for nothing. We wore plastic trash bags up to our knees to protect our feet from the mud puddles. I can only imagine what that stuff does to a water table.
Wind power is wonderful.... however who is to build the infrastructure to get that power from the windmill fields to the consumer?? If it isn't profitable that task then falls to the taxpayer.... to subdize private industry while they enjoy profits.
Personally, I see a problem with an ever intrusive government trying to pick commercial winners and losers. If there is money to be made, then let the investment banks take the risk.... NOT the taxpayer like in the case of Solyndra among others.
Wow, another article "praising" Mr. Obama's "Go Green" agenda. The last sentence doesn't make any sense [sarcasm]. Which "Green energy" is this talking about [sarcasm - biodisgesters of course] ? Maybe the last sentence should read:
Again, you have to be kidding me.
Gotta keep deflecting from the main issues of the day.
There are no "gates" to speak of. Fisker Automotive used their own funds to develop their first model, Karma, and arranged for production with a Finnish manufacturer BEFORE being awarded the loan to build manufacturing facilities IN THE US for their 2nd model. That ATVM loan is only being used in the US and has nothing to do with the overseas manufacturing efforts.
The Solyndra and Nevada Geothernal cases are just a matter of an investments going bad due to unexpected circumstances - a sudden drop in solar panel prices from China, and technical problems in Nevada. Any investment carries some risk, and sometimes things go wrong, but that doesn't prove any wrongdoing.
The remaining cases are government programs that did what they were supposed to do. It could be argued that they could have been better designed and better administered to get more "bang for the buck", but again, there was no evidence of wrongdoing.
Incompetence should be considered wrongdoing, as we are paying a bloody fortune for our government and are being told we need to pay all these six-figure salaries because these people are so damn smart.
We also have nearly 100 years of government meddling with tax revenue, so we have plenty of historical data with which to make future decisions.
These little "favored products" or "favored people" or "favored industries" engineering, having government favor one citizen over another, has to stop. There is no reason for favoring the auto industry over the home improvement business, or the personal care or any other industry.
We need to return to small government, less intrusive government, and let us all take care of ourselves. The nanny state is a loser and a bust.
You are aware the every 3+gigawatt wind turbine uses 2+tonnes of 'Rare Earths' purchased from China...
Research the wind farms in Hawaii. Concerning their cost, service life, and economic viability..
Research the Raptor and bat deaths and the removal of hundreds of wind turbines in Calif...
Or Google - sinking off-shore wind turbines in the UK or the many medical problems people/animals are having in the EU...
While they have their applications, they also have many problems that still need to be corrected...
OH thats right, cause oil production is so clean, so neat, and so perfect. Never see problems with the gas and oil industry do we? Your examples are a fallacy in comparison to the debate. I have worked on the gas/oil industry for 20+ years, and it isnt perfect, but what energy industry is? There will always be pro's and con's to any. The real question that needs to be addressed, is what type of energy is going to be the one that has a endless supply, to meet our needs now, and in the future, and at what cost?
AC Robertson - Not just the rare earth material, but the entire wind machine was imported from China. Only just recently have two companies began producing wind power machines in the US. China leads the world in renewable energy technology and have been the sole producer of wind machines until just recently. Its not that the US doesn't have a source for rare earth material.
lildi... China has about 90% of the global rare earths...
Oh and China IS far ahead of the United States... primarily because they didn't do the initial research... it was either stolen from us or transferred courtesy of GE and our government.
Wow, I had no idea China was practically the sole source of rare earth materials. Thanks for the info.
The largest wind turbine in testing today is under 10 MW watts, and it stands over 200 meters (600 feet) tall.
A 3 Gigawatt wind turbine would be ridicules The swept area would have to be 300 times larger, so the tower would have to be 1100 meters (3300 feet) tall.
Can and do, but it's not required. Wind turbines can be designed to use induction generators that don't require rare earth magnets. China is the leading producer of rare earth elements, but there are lots of areas that have rare earth ores, including in the US.
Cheaper than burning petroleum, which had been their major source of electrical power.
Already known, and measures have been taken to reduce those deaths by replacing smaller less efficient but faster spinning wind turbines with larger more efficient and slower rotating wind turbines. The production of wind energy keeps going up in spite of "removal of hundreds of OLD wind turbines".
Disasters happen, and wind turbines don't cause "medical problems" anywhere. Wind energy certainly doesn't present the health hazards of coal plant emissions.
The only time a Republican cares about the environment? When a bird or bat runs into a windmill.
What about the millions more deaths in our environment that are due to fossil fuels AC-Robertson? Somehow I think your environmentalism selectively overlooks those.
This map only shows big projects. I am more in favour of rooftop solar panels. It is sad to see our open deserts and prairies covered in windmills and solar systems.
Run a few of those "statistics" by Snopes or the Dept of Energy and you will be sadly disappointed.
(Really? Tonnes? Are you getting your info from BBC? Are you even an American?
You need to convert to metrics not the out-dated US system of measurement...
Born in Richmond, VA and live in the WORLD not just the USA...
Quit relying on the government to create renewable energy. Let entrepreneurs make renewable energy cheaper than traditional energy and people will buy it. The free market always works best when it is allowed to work freely.
Sure, that's why the free market worked so wel lin 1929 and again in 2008, because it was allowed to work with no regulation. Oh, wait, we got the Great Depression in 1929 and almost a second one in 2008. Never mind...
By the way, the entrepeneurs that founded Solyndra did come up with a cheaper way to build solar panels, but they could not compete with the lavish subsidies the Chinese governement laid onto their producers.
CAL.. the Chinese government doesn't subsidze industries... they're usually majority owners.. or entirely owned by the Peoples Liberation Army commercial enterprises
Of course, the Obama administration knew that all along. Yet, billions are being pumped into the solar energy industry knowing full well that Chapter 11 is the only result.
Acting like our "experts" didn't know the Chinese would sell a competitive product at a lower price means that you / they are either idiots or liars.
Big Duh China sells stuff cheaper. We needed to throw away $500+ million to confirm this fact?
Incompetence is the standard op procedure for the Obama administration, top to bottom.
You trolls wouldn't have a reason to b**** every day like whiny cry-babies if it weren't for Obama. You should be grateful.
Geothermal energy is not renewable. Artificially cooling the earth's core, even if only by an infinitesimal degree, is a bad idea.
Why?
Because it probably causes Global Warming, or Climate Change or whatever name it goes by this week.
BTW, solar energy is not 'limitless free energy'; when the sun burns out in a few billion years we'll be right back where we started from.
LOL
"experience at Wairakei, New Zealand. Here the ground has subsided as much as 42 feet. Monitoring has shown that a maximum subsidence rate of 18 inches/year occurred in a small region, outside the production area"
Ok - geothermal energy is completely renewable. When you consider the mass of the earth and the tiny amount that is being extracted (and re-absorbed), the impact is next to nill. Compare it to the other renewables.
Also, ground source heat pumps often get overlooked. The problem with geothermal plants is the cost to distribute the electricity. Local installations of ground source heat pumps have no distribution cost and are the highest efficiency heating/cooling system available. Current problem is the relatively high cost of drilling.
One last thought - the republican democrat blame game is tiring. Fact is both sides deserve blame and credit for the positives and negatives of renewable energy growth.
You want high gas prices --- they encourage conservation.
Some of you need to learn how to make your points much quicker--- PITHY.
9% nuclear 8% renewable. That's 17%. Frankly, not bad in my opinion. There is no "one-size-fits-all" solution. But a little here and a little there does make a difference. Frankly, a sensible cap-and-trade policy (over time) would do wonders for renewable, but would also create new high-tech jobs and spur cutting edge research. And yes, gas would go up in price, but if we used less of it, we would not feel it. It would be nice to lead in a 21st century technology instead of trying to continue to dominate a 20th century one.
This distorts what you think renewable energy will replace. For example If you convert to electric vehicles, that means you need to increase the electric output of the US by ~1.75x (41% electric prod. now plus the 28% transp. for current US energy use), and these need to be baseload power plants. Wind energy is useless for baseload (too variable), and currently produces only 1.1%. Geothermal only 0.3%.
And cap and trade is nothing more than futures trading like Wall Street is now ... no thanks. You're adding an intermediary that adds no value, only cost, which is windfall profit for somebody else.
LEGALIZE INDUSTRIAL HEMP FARMING if you want to see alternative renewable fuel!
Don't clutter up the thread with facts.
The map is missing several wind power facilities that I know about.
This map is not accurate from a potential perspective. I live in Hawaii... Wind potential here is incredible! the map shows modest. Solar...hello! it is sunny here 98% of the days...which is why there are solar hot water panels on a lot of homes and Photovoltaic cells are becoming common as well. Geothermal once again Hawaii was formed from volcanoes...
Yeah not sure who put this together but I am skeptical on its accuracy
The author must have flunked Science because the problem with renewable energy is that it doesn't exist. It doesn't exist because it violates the Law of Conservation of Energy/Matter which states that Energy/Matter cannot be created. This is a science law and it unlike human laws, it has no exemptions.
Patrick - You left out the part that says energy can be convered to mass and mass can be converted to energy. A very small mass of Uranium can be converted into massive amounts of energy. True?
It not Patrick it is AP. Now for a Physics refressor course. Energy = Matter at the speed of light according to Einstein famous equation. The problem here is that according to Einstein, this speed is impossible to achieve. Many facets of Einstein's equations that have been tested have come out as "true" in real life so when he says that the speed of light is the ultimate speed limit-he has a track record!
When the laser was invented they said cool, but saw absolutely no practical use for it and dumped it in the cellar.
You do remember the Model T Ford that scared the horses and eveyone said the damn thing was a worthless nuisance.
Shall I give more examples of new inventions that went on to become multi billion dollar industries.
It should currently be at least 80% from renewables, not 8%.
0% from nuclear.
We need as a nation to invest in the conversion of coal-powered generation plants to the cleanest sources of energy.
Climate change is not a joke, or a hoax. Dependence on Middle Eastern petroleum is not healthy for our country, to say the least. Energy conversion must be acted upon urgently.
The Texas experience with wind power clearly demonstrates its non economic viability. Texas has the most installed wind power of any state, approximately 10,000MW at peak capacity. The combined cost for the wind turbines and transmission capacity was $10B. During the terrible heat wave in Texas, the wind turbines generated little power typically 1/10 of their stated capacity. For example during peak demand periods on some of the hottest days, the turbines only generated 880MW, about 1.3 percent of power needs. For the cost of 10 conventional plants, Texans received the output of less than one conventional plant. Even with this massive investment in wind power, Texas must still have about the same number of conventional power plants. Worse, the control technology is much more complex because of the variability of the wind power. The long run transmission lines also suffer efficiency losses.
Renewable energy with wind and solar runs counter to the economics of power production. Power production is heavily capital intensive. The fuel costs do not drive power production economics. Renewable has the equation backwards by emphasizing fuel cost savings while basically ignoring capital costs. Renewable power will never be economically viable unless energy storage becomes very inexpensive.
Once again, the left has it backwards. Perpetual subsidies will iincrease electricity rates 200 to 400 percent. The US will have the highest electrical costs in the world. Meanwhile, China is building super efficient coal and nuclear plants at a frantic pace so that they will have low cost electricity prices. China has some showcase renewable projects mostly to pacify the environmental zealotry in the US and Europe while renewable subsidies and mandates in the US and Europe allow China to be the leading producer of renewable infrastructure including the rare earths. Our Democrats have the situation backwards, blindly by their zest to control the energy industry and impose their misguided environmental zeolotry on the country.
Do not confuse the sheep with facts...
Doing it right has got to be the next step. 8% is barely a start and a great embarrassment considering the effort and finances expended. We are fortunate actual supply and demand are not controlling what we pay for energy. More important what we are doing now is not even close to what is actually needed now and not even close to what will be needed in the future. We know how, how much, and why. The rhetoric level has existed below the intelligence level of a rock for the duration, the important lack, action is already starting to show us what we are missing.
Whatever any of our views may be, eventually oil and coal and nuclear will be fazed out. We might as well quit moaning about it and get with the development of renewables and electronic devices that use less energy.
Even none of that will keep us from species suicide if we don't get with lowering our population.
It's not at all complicated. It is made that way deliberately because of those that don't give a rat's ass about the future as long as they get rich now. The last is in the face of the absolute fact that we can't take it with us.
And disappearing as the enviros blow up the dams one by one.
Yeah, nothing but facts here. Derrrrrr
mean while the big oil companies continue to hide the innovations made and stolen from others that would cut gas usage by 75%. They have even went as far as to murder those who couldn't be bought off.
What about Hydrogen fuel. The technology is there for power generation plants that can run on it efficiently but the big oil has bought up most of the rights to Hydrogen production and wont release it.
Its time to have a citizens investigation committee not connected to government to look into the big oil dealings with the power to subpoena any records they want and to for prosecution of all who hide the innovations as treason against the people and economic well being of the country
Will you volunteer to work in a hydrogen-generating plant? I hope you have good life insurance. Hydrogen is very explosive and very hard to seal which means leaks will be common, especially if it is used in cars and homes where routine maintenance is not everyone's priority. If you think natural gas leaks and explosions are bad, you ain't seen nothing until hydrogen is widely used. Also, the only economically feasible way to generate hydrogen in massive quanitities is with electrolysis which takes lots of electric power. Where will we get the electricity? Coal power generating plants? Nuclear plants? Don't say solar because that is just too expensive.
Uhh anyone else notice the difference between California and the Deep South???
I'm about as Green as they come. I've driven a hybrid car for eight years now.
Long ago I realized that wind and solar were not good investments. It is NOT the business of our government to invest in, or otherwise subsidize, private/cooperate business. Government is far too handicapped by obsolete rules and procedures to accomplish anything meaningful.
Would you believe I'm a liberal?
We have lost too much of our wealth to keep pissing it away on renewable energy sources. We have the oil. We have the gas. Lets rebuild our economy on the back of abundant cheap energy.
Viable Nuclear Fusion (not Fission, think the Sun) is as close as ten years away, so say the French. When these reactors go online around the world all of the renewable and conventional energy production will cease to be economically justified. Energy will be so abundant and clean the world will change overnight.