Skip to comments.Solar fades as shale gas flares
Posted on 01/21/2011 10:52:42 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Shale gas supplies may last 250 years and make renewables uneconomic
China reportedly has some two-thirds of the US$39-billion global market for solar panels, but it doesnt use them very much. Why? Because theyre uneconomic.
The Chinese subsidize their manufacturers to take advantage of the ultra-expensive alternative energy forced on western consumers via feed-in tariffs. Smart for them, dumb for us, but since everybody is subsidizing renewables, its hard to condemn the Chinese. Indeed, the terms solar panels and free trade dont belong in the same conceptual time zone, even if they are reportedly an issue at this weeks meetings in Washington between U.S. President Barack Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao.
There are far bigger issues here than policy hypocrisy. What happens to renewable energy when alarmist climate science collapses? And even if the ideological rearguard action drags on for years, what about the fact that shale gas is about to make renewables look even more ridiculous in terms of both economics and emissions?
The feed-in tariffs that the Chinese are so assiduously avoiding at home are analogous to the medieval scam of coin-clipping, only in reverse. Governments hope that if a small amount of ludicrously expensive renewable electricity is loaded onto consumers bills, they might not notice. The grand policy rationale behind this piece of economic self-mutilation is that alternatives will eventually yield a market bonanza, and any nation that has successfully promoted solar and wind champions will mop up all the business, as in the monopoly fantasies of Karl Marx.
This policy is nonsensical at many levels. Even if climate science is not entirely bogus, the costs of renewables are likely to do far more damage than bad weather. One of the biggest promoters of solar power, Spain, has already seen its subsidy system collapse.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinion.financialpost.com ...
Meanwhile..the US Govt and California continue to subsidize the installation of solar panels. Using money borrowed from China..
We need to get rid of these morons.
Locally we have the conservative talk radio..KOGO..pimping for a solar panel company and helping to push the state and federal subsidies.
Shale gas supplies should last 1,000 years according to people here in Houston I have spoken with who are in the know about this topic.
Our economy could be fixed very quickly if we opened up access to shale and other known sources of energy and allowed the construction of new refineries. If we added a flat 20% income tax on top of that, abolished the IRS and then started selling off unneeded federal land, buildings and other assets we would be awash with prosperity. Money would flow in from all over the world to invest here. We would be able to restart our own manufacturing and once again start making things in America.
None of this will happen because those in Washington are actively and aggressively working to run the country in to the dirt. That is the only thing I can conclude because of their actions.
Thanks to George Mitchell’s horizontal drilling technology which is now throughout the energy industry - Poland has 200 years of nat gas and Germany about 100 years.
Why not use some of the coal in all that federal land out west.. don’t tar sands eventually turn into shale or .. have to do a little research,, lots of stuff in the ground right here on our continent
Coal ain’t pretty but it can yield a burnable fluid fuel.. shale seems more yucky to me in the processing.. and only 250 years.. ? another 10 generations of fossil fuelers.. I don’t know.. Heck, nascar will be running on electric in 10 years at the rate things are going..
meanwhile the atom is ready to get the job done,, but we haven’t built a nuke power plant in ages here..
The waspman might like this website.
wow. verrrry interestink.
By William Walter Kay
Three score and seven years ago the United Nations was founded primarily to advance the interests of English-speaking countries. Now the UN is primarily interested in conducting economic warfare on those countries. The tipping point in UN history roughly corresponds with Kurt Waldheims tenure as Secretary-General (1972-81). This essay draws upon: the recent reportage on the UNs Global Ministerial Environmental Forum; the recently leaked Management Review of Environmental Governance within the United Nations System; the Encyclopedia of the United Nations and International Agreements; the websites of UN agencies, and other troves to sketch a portrait of the UNs environmental programs.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Environmentalism in the UN before Waldheim
Waldheim before he became UN Secretary General
Oberleutnant as Secretary-General 1972-1981
Waldheim and the European-centered UN
Environmentalism in the UN; Waldheim-era and Beyond
The 1986 Austrian Presidential Election
The UN System's Environmental Programs
The UN System and Multi-Lateral Environmental Agreements
United Nations Environment Programme
The 2008 Joint Inspection Unit Report
The 2009 Global Ministerial Environmental Forum
Fin de Siècle
The UN was a New Years baby, 1942. With the Declaration by the United Nations, 26 countries allied to fight fascism. After WWII the Allies convened in San Francisco in April 1945 and formally re-launched the UN six months later. While the UNs main aim was peace, its Charter also directed it to employ international machinery for the promotion of economic and social advancement. The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) was established to coordinate this activity. In 1947 ECOSOC founded the Economic Commission for Europe to aid European countries devastated by WWII. As British, French and Portuguese empires dissolved, scores of countries emerged with inadequate infrastructure. ECOSOC established regional economic commissions to aid these states. ECOSOCs development budget was small and proposals to increase it were resisted by the USSR, which argued such activity was not the UNs job. Until the 1960s ECOSOC mostly held conferences and conducted research. ECOSOCs foray into aid was fraught with disagreements and morphed into a loose network of programs funded by ad hoc voluntary contributions. (1) Development had a conventional bricks-and-bridges meaning; aid often meant helping poor countries exploit their resources.
Funny, I can watch TV and still think for myself.
Your obsession is unhealthy. Might as well say ‘trade your freedom for a computer mouse’, same thing.
The dirty secret of natural gas is that it can be used for nearly everything we currently use petroleum, from heating to automobiles.....and it is all proven, efficient technology and requires no subsidies.
a bit of history that has come back to bite us all in a major way..
unintended consequences happen? hardly.
Kurt Waldheim was a former Brown-Shirt with an Iron Cross dangling from his lapel when he wrote a doctoral thesis deifying the Third Reich while simultaneously plotting war crimes which were actually carried out. Can you be more of a Nazi? So query: Whats a guy like that doing running the UN? Answer: hes converting it into an environmental movement resource. The Stockholm Conference, the founding of UNEP, the start of the ozone hole and global warming scares, the global population control blitzes, the proliferation of multi-lateral environmental agreements, and the greening of many UN agencies, all date to his tenure. This is not to portray Waldheim as an eco-Horatio. Environmentalist appropriation of the UN slightly pre-dates his tenure. Installing Waldheim into the Secretary-Generals chair was a coup for the movement and a consequence of their growing clout. No one should be so naive as to think international environmentalisms leaders were unaware of Waldheims past, or disapproving.
There was more to Nazism than anti-Semitism and militarism. A core ingredient was indigenous-ism romanticizing the affinity between ethnicity and geography. A contemporary manifestation of this is the anti-colonialism emanating from Europe and purporting to assist Amazonian Indians, Australian Aborigines, etc. This anti-colonialism is an attack on the national sovereignty of Brazil, Canada, USA, Australia and other colonial countries. It serves the environmental movement by undermining economic development in the hinterland of these states. Half the UNs founders were colonial states.
In 1942 the world was divided into two camps. The Axis powers controlled Continental Europe, Japan and areas of the western Pacific. The Allies sphere was the English-speaking world, South America and part of the USSR. The United Nations was 100% lodged in the Allied sphere. The UNs purpose was to diplomatically isolate, and conduct economic warfare on, the Axis world and ultimately to impose regime changes on Germany, Japan, etc. Now the territories formerly under Axis control supply most of the money, staffing and head office locales for the UN. UN-led campaigns to suppress and retard development of the Americas and Australia, and campaigns to steer humanity away from abundant supplies of hydrocarbons, are economic warfare operations benefitting former Axis states. The socio-geographical pre-determination of fascism persists and underlies environmentalism.
Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and UNEP were born months apart (1971-72). UNEP is the youngest and smallest of the triplets. The trio have identical ultra-green ideologies. Each are multinational in operation and globalist in outlook. They conduct joint campaigns. Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth routinely quote UNEP as an authority. Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth are integrated into UNEPs management. UNEP is every bit as much of a biased eco-activist group as is Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth. UNEP launched global warming BEFORE the campaign was sanctioned by the UN General Assembly. The campaigns policy goals reducing the use of hydrocarbon fuels and expanding the worlds forests were UNEP/Greenpeace/Friends of the Earth goals BEFORE the campaign. Scientistic factoids supporting the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis were harvested AFTER the alarm was sounded; after lavish funds were made available. Few people would pay heed to global warming if it were solely Greenpeaces cause. The campaign depends on appropriation of UN imprimatur. The media acquiesces to and sustains the myth that UNEP and other UN agencies are honest brokers of scientific information with humanitys best interests at heart.
Studying UN environmentalist efforts is an education on how large and institutionalized environmentalism has become. The image persists of environmentalism as an earnest, idealist grassroots protest movement. This is a media myth. True, the movement has its shock troops, its extremists, its radical flank, but these people are an exploitable flock amidst a much larger organizational field. The modern environmental movement encompasses several hundred state bureaucracies, over a thousand intergovernmental bodies and UN agencies, and tens of thousands of non-profit societies. The movement has built a constituency in the wind and solar power industries, in the international chemical cartel, in eco-tourism, in organic farming and food distribution, in environmental law firms, and in tens of thousands of other for-profit businesses. The movement has colonized the board rooms of scores of mass media firms, hundreds of philanthropic foundations and has established beach-heads in multiple faculties in every university. In spite of this, it retains crucial features of a social movement: it represents a marginalized solidarity network grasping for power.
See #10 and #15.
I’ll be more suprised if you don’t go after a TV station someday than if you do. Scary stuff.
This is shale NATURAL GAS, not oil from shale. Two very different beasts. Coal simply can't compete with nat. gas, which is cleaner burning, easier to transport, is significantly more efficient when used to generate electricity, and can be used in current and past automobiles with only minor modifications.
aw geees on me.. Thanks for that! I’m gonna blame solar shale gas flare activity. :-)
can we pressurize it and use it? ,, you betcha. sad to see all this energy for the asking just go to waste for now.. or until China takes ownership. :-)
fully using domestic coal, gas and oil will....
Offer a trade commodity
Give OPEC the finger
I don’t see where it would hurt to have the capability to self generate ~4kWh on a good day.
Heh...Sundanzer 8.1 cu. ft. freezer — up to about $4 per month in very sunny areas at most for golf cart batteries (based on only 5-year battery life, can go to about 10 years for one who thinks). The freezer’s the big energy consumer in a properly built house with the best choices in appliances. Microwaves, washers, etc., don’t run long enough in a day to consume much. And no dryers, of course.
But that kind of low energy usage only happens in off-grid systems in very sunny, high altitude places, self-built by nerds like myself—not grid-tied systems for government welfare for politically correct, suburban, government-job-dependent fat cats (way too expensive and improperly designed).
...same with wind turbines. Those work in places that are downright scary with high winds, and only homebuilt monsters with large alternators on trailer hubs are tough enough to last.
Verdict: government-funded, corporate-government heads are retarded. Rejected, impoverished techies do rule.
quite a guy, Mr. Mitchell...loved his boats, particularly an old 31 Bertram with no flybridge...he wanted a newer boat in the early 80s, and Blackfin was his choice, but Blackfin didn't have a model that didn't have a flybridge.....in short, Blackfin made a boat without a flybridge...the owner?..one George Mitchell, Galveston, Texas
Yep, heating with wood this year. You have to burn a _lot_ of it. I'm benefiting from the Emerald Ash Borer. However, lots of people seem to thing that just because their tree had been dead for a couple of years that the wood does not have to be seasoned.
I guess solar cannot compete on its own.
They already ARE!!!