• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Most of The World Could Be 100% Powered With Renewables by 2050

Broken record. Very few netmetering installations are oversized, so very few get end-of-the-year credits, which would be the only part of Netmetering that effects the Utility's bottom line. And you still don't seem to fully grasp the extent of solar's contribution to peak load. Also, point-of-consumption electrical generation helps the Utilities achieve even more profits.

https://www.seia.org/initiatives/net-metering
Unfortunately, some utilities perceive net metering policies as lost revenue opportunities. In fact, net metering policies create a smoother demand curve for electricity and allow utilities to better manage their peak electricity loads. By encouraging generation near the point of consumption, net metering also reduces the strain on distribution systems and prevents losses in long-distance electricity transmission and distribution.

Talk it through, to understand how most net metering works, and tell me what price the utility pays for the Kwh.
Each billing period, the solar customer generated surplus, earns credits.
https://www.mvea.coop/wp-content/uploads/20.42NetMeteringRate_0022-1.pdf
Energy Credit: means the measured difference between the electricity generated by the
Eligible Generating System and the electricity consumed by the Consumer
-Generator in a given billing period,when the electricity consumed is less.
So basically at any point during the day when more power is generated than consumed, the exchange is 1:1,
what this means is that the Utility is effectively buying surplus power at their own retail rate.
 
Talk it through, to understand how most net metering works, and tell me what price the utility pays for the Kwh.
Each billing period, the solar customer generated surplus, earns credits.
https://www.mvea.coop/wp-content/uploads/20.42NetMeteringRate_0022-1.pdf

So basically at any point during the day when more power is generated than consumed, the exchange is 1:1,
what this means is that the Utility is effectively buying surplus power at their own retail rate.

That is so funny.:lamo You linked to Mountain View Electric's policy statement, and then quoted something that isn't even part of the link. This policy statement actually demonstrates everything I was saying.

Did I ever show you my systems? I paid $38K for the turbine and panels. If anything goes wrong with my systems, I have to pay to maintain them. I pay the Utility company $34.95 to be attached to their grid. This is up from $9.95, 5 years ago. When I am creating excess power in the summer, my power starts going to my neighbors. The Utility company gains because there is little voltage loss with this power. Do you know that voltage losses increase with high temperature? Do you understand that I reduce the number of electrons flowing through their power lines, to our area, and that this reduction in current, is what lessens the voltage loss. This is win-win-win... And when I produce power on a hot summer day, while other Utility customers are cranking up their Air Conditioners, I am producing during peak load. if myself and all the other solar customers didn't add that power to the grid, Tri-State Energy, the source company, would probably have to build another power plant. Do you know what this does to electric rates? Tri-State would have to send more electrons down the wire, to power all those ACs, and then there would be more voltage loss. And this voltage loss is at it's peak during these hot peak days, because voltage loss increases with higher temperatures. It's a win-win-win...
SolarWind_CloseUp.JPG
 
Last edited:
By 2050 most of the world could be 100% powered with renewable energy while at the same lead to a net increase of 24 million new jobs, according to a new 2050 roadmap.



https://www.sciencealert.com/most-of-the-world-could-be-100-powered-by-renewables-by-2050

Direct link to the study: https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CountriesWWS.pdf

Why should alternative power require 26 million more jobs than conventional production? And if it does, why is it profitable considering how much 26 million jobs cost. That has to be factored into the price of energy.
 
I don't think we will trail the world, but only because there is a lot of profit to be derived
from refineries making their own fuel from scratch.
The US and Germany seem to the the centers for this type of research,
but the groups working on it are basically amateurs compared to the
wealth in intellectual capital employed by the oil companies.

The US is already behind, and oil and coal are committed to oil and coal. Surely you've seen all those coal jobs come back under Don, no? No.
 
Why should alternative power require 26 million more jobs than conventional production? And if it does, why is it profitable considering how much 26 million jobs cost. That has to be factored into the price of energy.

I'll bet they don't count the numbers and costs properly.
 

Interesting problems there in Oregon. I've been there quite often, and have been impressed by the Bonneville Power dams and hydroelectric power plants. However this is not a designed pumped-water-system. So in reality, your comments aren't applicable to my post. However, I still find it interesting. The problem is best summed up with this paragraph:

Overgeneration typically occurs in the spring and early summer, when snow runoff and heavy rains combine to increase hydro generation and the same storm fronts rapidly ramp wind turbines. The BPA says the dam operators have only limited flexibility to dial back hydro generation to accommodate wind surges because dumping water through the dams' spillways raises dissolved nitrogen levels in the river, which can harm migrating fish.

Of course, we all understand politicking, and some of these issues were probably there before the wind farms were even added to the mix. I look at this as a good problem to have. Perhaps the State of Oregon could improve their economy, by purchasing less coal-fired power from Wyoming or Montana. Oregon gets 40% of its power from coal. Or perhaps they could convert their Boardman coal powered plant (their only coal plant) to a redesigned "on-demand" plant, using a scheme of smaller boilers and turbines. As an Electrical Engineer, I've been involved in some of these projects - using smaller state-of-the-art equipment to better balance load needs. And they usually have nothing to do with renewables.

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Oregon_and_coal
https://www.alternet.org/story/143432/will_oregon_close_the_state's_only_coal-fired_power_plant/
 
Lots of things could happen if they were wanted "badly enough" but as demand for fossil fuels falls so does their cost because their supply exists. IMHO, short of a huge tax (effective ban?) on these current fossil fuels it is extremely unlikely to happen.

One merely need look back at what this perceptual reality had done to Europe that required an "age of discovery" to understand how far it will take things both here and globally, not pretty. Extracting and concentrating wealth is the one true american value, nothing else compares, or in the end, matters.
 
Interesting problems there in Oregon. I've been there quite often, and have been impressed by the Bonneville Power dams and hydroelectric power plants. However this is not a designed pumped-water-system. So in reality, your comments aren't applicable to my post. However, I still find it interesting. The problem is best summed up with this paragraph:

Overgeneration typically occurs in the spring and early summer, when snow runoff and heavy rains combine to increase hydro generation and the same storm fronts rapidly ramp wind turbines. The BPA says the dam operators have only limited flexibility to dial back hydro generation to accommodate wind surges because dumping water through the dams' spillways raises dissolved nitrogen levels in the river, which can harm migrating fish.

Of course, we all understand politicking, and some of these issues were probably there before the wind farms were even added to the mix. I look at this as a good problem to have. Perhaps the State of Oregon could improve their economy, by purchasing less coal-fired power from Wyoming or Montana. Oregon gets 40% of its power from coal. Or perhaps they could convert their Boardman coal powered plant (their only coal plant) to a redesigned "on-demand" plant, using a scheme of smaller boilers and turbines. As an Electrical Engineer, I've been involved in some of these projects - using smaller state-of-the-art equipment to better balance load needs. And they usually have nothing to do with renewables.

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Oregon_and_coal
https://www.alternet.org/story/143432/will_oregon_close_the_state's_only_coal-fired_power_plant/

The funny thing about the Oregon getting 40% coal is because of book keeping. In reality, we are a net exporter of power. We produce more hydro power in the Northwest than the power we use ourselves. The 3.1 gigawatts of power we send to Los Angeles via the Pacific DC Intertie is counted on their books. This isn't fair the way they account for things. I would make the argument that the 40% coal power that Oregon imports should be counted on California's books. Not ours. It is their demand and old agreements that they get and claim 3.1 gigawatts of our hydro power. The 3.1 is also slated to be upgraded in two stages. I don't know if stage 1 is completed yet, but once stage 2 is, the wind power might break even, or profit the northwest users, instead of us paying for a colossus error.
 
That is so funny.:lamo You linked to Mountain View Electric's policy statement, and then quoted something that isn't even part of the link. This policy statement actually demonstrates everything I was saying.

Did I ever show you my systems? I paid $38K for the turbine and panels. If anything goes wrong with my systems, I have to pay to maintain them. I pay the Utility company $34.95 to be attached to their grid. This is up from $9.95, 5 years ago. When I am creating excess power in the summer, my power starts going to my neighbors. The Utility company gains because there is little voltage loss with this power. Do you know that voltage losses increase with high temperature? Do you understand that I reduce the number of electrons flowing through their power lines, to our area, and that this reduction in current, is what lessens the voltage loss. This is win-win-win... And when I produce power on a hot summer day, while other Utility customers are cranking up their Air Conditioners, I am producing during peak load. if myself and all the other solar customers didn't add that power to the grid, Tri-State Energy, the source company, would probably have to build another power plant. Do you know what this does to electric rates? Tri-State would have to send more electrons down the wire, to power all those ACs, and then there would be more voltage loss. And this voltage loss is at it's peak during these hot peak days, because voltage loss increases with higher temperatures. It's a win-win-win...
You have told me about your system, but what you do not seem to understand, is that, when you get a credit for your daily surplus, even a single Kwh,
that credit is at the retail rate, because that is what you would have paid, had you not been generating power.
The rate excludes any of the normal markups, the utility uses to pay it's staff, pay maintenance, and any other expenses.
If enough people utilize the net metering plan, the utility would go out of business.
The increase in grid attach fees is an attempt to limit the bleeding.
 
The US is already behind, and oil and coal are committed to oil and coal. Surely you've seen all those coal jobs come back under Don, no? No.
The Federal government, for the most part lets the market drive the sources of electrical energy.
The exception would be declaring CO2 a pollutant, thus handicapping sources that emit CO2.
Weather extra CO2 is even an issue, or perhaps a benefit, is still the subject of debate.
While added CO2 will cause some warming, a warmer planet has in the past been a better planet.
But in reality the scientific basis warming expected from a doubling of CO2 levels will been in the noise range.
 
You have told me about your system, but what you do not seem to understand, is that, when you get a credit for your daily surplus, even a single Kwh,
that credit is at the retail rate, because that is what you would have paid, had you not been generating power.
The rate excludes any of the normal markups, the utility uses to pay it's staff, pay maintenance, and any other expenses.
If enough people utilize the net metering plan, the utility would go out of business.
The increase in grid attach fees is an attempt to limit the bleeding.
Not true. All the Utility has to do is raise it's Usage Fees, and they won't go out of business. It's only fair, since the Solar Netmetering customers are the ones holding down the electrical rates, as I pointed out. And all thanks to their investments.

The people that use it, pay for it. Now that's fair. Your argument is like saying that a person that pulls up to a gasoline station, with a small car, should pay a higher rate than the gas-guzzling SUV.
 
Not true. All the Utility has to do is raise it's Usage Fees, and they won't go out of business. It's only fair, since the Solar Netmetering customers are the ones holding down the electrical rates, as I pointed out. And all thanks to their investments.

The people that use it, pay for it. Now that's fair. Your argument is like saying that a person that pulls up to a gasoline station, with a small car, should pay a higher rate than the gas-guzzling SUV.
Still do not get it, I see. If you effectively sell a unit of power (Kwh) to the utility at the retail rate, they cannot make any markup, period.
If the utility is required by law to pay all comers the retail rate for their surplus, and enough people participate,
they cannot raise the grid attachment fees high enough to stay in business.
At some point the non solar customers (who also pay the grid attachment fee) could not afford the electricity.
We are seeing some of this in Australia already, where rates have tripled.
 
Still do not get it, I see. If you effectively sell a unit of power (Kwh) to the utility at the retail rate, they cannot make any markup, period.
If the utility is required by law to pay all comers the retail rate for their surplus, and enough people participate,
they cannot raise the grid attachment fees high enough to stay in business.
At some point the non solar customers (who also pay the grid attachment fee) could not afford the electricity.
We are seeing some of this in Australia already, where rates have tripled.

I see it very well. You are a Corporate puppet. Unless there are State laws, the Utility boards already decide the rate paid for Renewable credits. You show me how many States have contradictory laws to this statement. You won't be able to, which proves that your plot is only to unjustly bash renewables.
 
I see it very well. You are a Corporate puppet. Unless there are State laws, the Utility boards already decide the rate paid for Renewable credits. You show me how many States have contradictory laws to this statement. You won't be able to, which proves that your plot is only to unjustly bash renewables.
It's ok if you have not taken any accounting classes, but you need to understand that net metering is a death sentence for solar expansion.
The only possible way for it to work, is if the credit rate is the same as the wholesale rate.
If the utility effectively buys even a single unit of power above the normal wholesale rate,
that difference must be corrected elsewhere.
You say the amount of surplus is minimal, yet your own electrical cooperative, found it necessary to increase grid connection fees.
Most cooperatives are non profit, and must justify any price increase with actual costs, so I suspect there were some actual costs.
I do not want the bash renewable, they must expand, I am simply telling you the current net metering plans are roadblocks to solar expansion.
 
Why should alternative power require 26 million more jobs than conventional production? And if it does, why is it profitable considering how much 26 million jobs cost. That has to be factored into the price of energy.

You can read a summary on page eleven in the report about the jobs created. That you will have a net increase of 24.3 million permanent jobs. That the increase of permanent, continuous construction jobs far more than makes up for the loss of operation jobs.

https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CountriesWWS.pdf

Also, a lot of money will be saved thanks to increased energy efficiency, energy savings, no fuel costs and less social costs.
 
Please....

Words have meaning. What you refer to is not a subsidy.

Or don't try to use correct words, and remain ignorant.

Why do you believe that the International Monetary Fund is ignorant?

Here you can read more about the study and the trillion-dollar cost of not having fossil fuel companies pay the cost of their pollution.

Energy subsidies are projected at US$5.3 trillion in 2015, or 6.5 percent of global GDP, according to a recent IMF study. Most of this arises from countries setting energy taxes below levels that fully reflect the environmental damage associated with energy consumption.

https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2015/09/28/04/53/sonew070215a
 
By 2050 most of the world could be 100% powered with renewable energy while at the same lead to a net increase of 24 million new jobs, according to a new 2050 roadmap.

What a specious bit of insane reasoning is reflected by this comment. You have the capacity to reduce your combustion based energy to 0% right now, this very instance.

You don't want to however, your recommendations are intended only for "others"

Here is how you can put your money where your mouth it:

1) Go to your house main circuit breaker panel and drop the mains, padlock the panel closed and toss the key away. Turn off the main gas valve to your house and similarly lock it shut and toss the keys away. Cut your any telephone access to your house. Telephones run on fossil fuels

2) Drive to your local hardware and buy enough Portland cement to fill the oil filler reservoirs to capacity of all the vehicles you own and then run the engines until they seize. Call the scrap dealer to haul them away. Always avoid temptation to ever drive them (or let anyone else to likewise) again.

3) Cease buying any thing from any store, all stores purvey goods grown, manufactured, preserved, and transported to their shelves with a combination of coal, gas, and oil products

If you cannot grow what you need without to eat with chemicals, you can always starve like the the rest of the world that does not have access to plentiful affordable and reliable energy.

Do all these things then, one year later, walk to the town square and shout to anyone who will listen that you are now the first greenie on the whole Earth who is not also a hypocrite
 
Last edited:
You can read a summary on page eleven in the report about the jobs created. That you will have a net increase of 24.3 million permanent jobs. That the increase of permanent, continuous construction jobs far more than makes up for the loss of operation jobs.

https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CountriesWWS.pdf

Also, a lot of money will be saved thanks to increased energy efficiency, energy savings, no fuel costs and less social costs.

I thought the central idea behind all economics is "efficiency" if the same amount of electricity requires 26 million new jobs (about 1/4 of the US work force after excluding all useless government people) how does that benefit the economy?

If we hire 13 million people to dig holes and another 13 million to fill them up wont we get the same new employment without all that "earth raping and mining" required to make more "green" obsolescence?
 
Why do you believe that the International Monetary Fund is ignorant?

Here you can read more about the study and the trillion-dollar cost of not having fossil fuel companies pay the cost of their pollution.



https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2015/09/28/04/53/sonew070215a

Code-words...

I despise the improper use of words for effect.

Such wording is effective to the ignorant masses. I try to accel above ignorance. Your choice if you choose not to.


Definition of subsidy
plural subsidies
: a grant or gift of money: such as
a : a sum of money formerly granted by the British Parliament to the crown and raised by special taxation
b : money granted by one state to another
c : a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subsidy
 
It's ok if you have not taken any accounting classes, but you need to understand that net metering is a death sentence for solar expansion.
The only possible way for it to work, is if the credit rate is the same as the wholesale rate.
If the utility effectively buys even a single unit of power above the normal wholesale rate,
that difference must be corrected elsewhere.
You say the amount of surplus is minimal, yet your own electrical cooperative, found it necessary to increase grid connection fees.
Most cooperatives are non profit, and must justify any price increase with actual costs, so I suspect there were some actual costs.
I do not want the bash renewable, they must expand, I am simply telling you the current net metering plans are roadblocks to solar expansion.

Didn't think you could. Nothing but hot air!!!
 
Code-words...

I despise the improper use of words for effect.

Such wording is effective to the ignorant masses. I try to accel above ignorance. Your choice if you choose not to.


Definition of subsidy
plural subsidies
: a grant or gift of money: such as
a : a sum of money formerly granted by the British Parliament to the crown and raised by special taxation
b : money granted by one state to another
c : a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subsidy

Are you calling the poster "ignorant". That's against the rules of the forum. But they seem to give you more leeway than others.
 
Are you calling the poster "ignorant". That's against the rules of the forum. But they seem to give you more leeway than others.

Ignorant simply means unknowing of fact. It isn't calling someone dumb, or other degrading words.

Words have meaning. Please do better.


Definition of ignorant
1 a : destitute of knowledge or education

an ignorant society

; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified

parents ignorant of modern mathematics

b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence

ignorant errors

2 : unaware, uninformed

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ignorant
 
Didn't think you could. Nothing but hot air!!!
I understand that you are trying to justify that your actions are not harming what you claim to support,
but the facts are that net metering in the form that is anything above the wholesale price,
cannot survive the expansion of solar.
For home solar to be practical, it must be grid tied.
Off grid solar is possible, but at 2 times the price, and would require your own backup generator.
Having grid power, always waiting for those times when solar/wind system is not enough, is
a requirement for solar to be economically viable.
What is not a requirement is for the home power system to feed anything back to the grid.
There would be some benefits to surplus solar being fed back into the grid, but if the cost is the
destruction of the electrical utilities that are necessary for affordable solar, the price is too high.
Insisting that a Kwh in and a Kwh out have the same value, only leads to a bankrupt utility.
A more reasonable approach, is to have home solar producers get a wholesale price credit
for each unit of surplus, the alternative is to force utilities to allow only grid assist connections.
 
I understand that you are trying to justify that your actions are not harming what you claim to support,
but the facts are that net metering in the form that is anything above the wholesale price,
cannot survive the expansion of solar.
For home solar to be practical, it must be grid tied.
Off grid solar is possible, but at 2 times the price, and would require your own backup generator.
Having grid power, always waiting for those times when solar/wind system is not enough, is
a requirement for solar to be economically viable.
What is not a requirement is for the home power system to feed anything back to the grid.
There would be some benefits to surplus solar being fed back into the grid, but if the cost is the
destruction of the electrical utilities that are necessary for affordable solar, the price is too high.
Insisting that a Kwh in and a Kwh out have the same value, only leads to a bankrupt utility.
A more reasonable approach, is to have home solar producers get a wholesale price credit
for each unit of surplus, the alternative is to force utilities to allow only grid assist connections.

Put up, or shut up:

You show me how many States have contradictory laws to this statement. You won't be able to, which proves that your plot is only to unjustly bash renewables.
 
Back
Top Bottom