frflyer
Loading...
Symbols:
Loading...
Symbols:
Hedge Fund Jobs
Job Seekers: Search jobs by category, get job alerts by email or live feed, apply online See full list of jobs »
Employers: See all recruitment options, get applications online or by email Post a job »
Trading Center
- Free E-Newsletters
- About Seeking Alpha
- About Us
- Contact Us
- What's New
- Readers Feedback
- Advertise With Us
- Contributors
- Contribute an Article
- Feature Your Book
- Our Contributors
- Anonymous Contributions
- Dispute an Article?
- Legal
- Terms of Use
- Privacy
- Copyright
Latest Comments96 Comments
Follow the Mutual Funds: Solar Is Bottoming
"Eclipse Aviation may have been a scam from the beginning. Solar is suspect too because of possible heat rate and capacity factor problems"
This statement makes no sense. What is your source?
What heat rate and capacity factor problems?
Schott's plant in Arizona is to produce receiver tubes for solar thermal power plants.
Solar thermal plants need cooling to condense steam back to liquid so it can be turned into steam again. This can be done with air or water cooling.
The Long and Winding Solar Road
I don't think PV has natural resource constraints. The raw materials are very abundant. All that's lacking is enough refining capacity and foundries to produce the high grade silicon materials and wafers.
I agree that solar thermal will be huge. Low tech with no exotic materials.
Problem for investors is that there aren't any public companies yet. At least no that I've heard of. There is United Technology's Sunstrand Rockedyne division, which makes the systems for molten salt heat storage.
And now Solar Reserve, a solar thermal power plant company as an offshoot of that. But United Technology is not a pure play for investors. I suppose a spin off is possible.
billp37
Are you saying that Sunpower is interested in building a solar thermal plant? That's what comes to mind when you say "solar trough". That doesn't sound right. Or is Bothwell from PG&E?
I'm missing something.
The Week That Solar Was Left for Dead
Science magazine article on Stablilization Wedges to solve global warming
carbonsequestration.us...
for more recent take on stablilization wedges go here
climateprogress.org/20.../
An Introduction to the Core Climate Solutions
Black Swans and Greenwashing Solar and Wind
Subsidies for fossil fuels are about 5 to 10 times as much as for renewable energy.
As this link shows:
on oil subsidies
www.heatisonline.org/c...
"subsidy programmes from 1918 are still in place"
"I'm not aware of any oil and gas subsidy that has ever been phased out," said Koplow, the leading expert on U.S. energy subsidies"
"in a time of skyrocketing oil prices and profits, why did the George W. Bush administration in 2005 authorise an additional 32.9 billion dollars in new subsidies over a five-year period?"
"Koplow's 2007 report to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development puts the annual U.S. subsidy at an average of 39 billion dollars a year."
Another estimate puts oil and gas subsidies and tax credits at $84 billion a year.
www.setamericafree.org...
"Estimating U.S. oil and gas subsidies is very challenging. Subsidies rarely involve cash payments. Instead scores of U.S. government agencies and departments create hundreds of programmes to support the U.S. energy sector. And there is no requirement for the federal government to keep track of all this."
"Energy subsidies are often simply hidden from public scrutiny. It's only recently been revealed that 40 companies granted leases between 1996 and 2000 for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico do not have to pay royalties for the publicly-owned resource. This is worth nearly a billion dollars a year in lost revenue to the federal government."
"This massive government intervention distorts energy markets, making it very difficult for alternative energy sources to compete without similarly massive subsidies. "And it promotes America's addiction to oil," Larsen added."
The average effective tax rate on integrated
oil operations has fallen from 21.5 percent in
the early 1980s to only 8.7 percent in the 1990s (both
figures are significantly below the statutory rate of 35
Coal and nuclear are also heavily subsidized.
Anyone who makes statements about solar and wind needing to be subsidized shouldn't be listened to becuase it is sheer nonsense.
Fledgling industries are what should be subsidized, not mature industries making the biggest profits in American business history.
McCain wants to build 45 nuclear plants by 2020
The American Wind Energy Association forecasts that installed capacity could grow from 11,603 MW today to around 100,000 MW by 2020. That's 100 gigawatts, or a nearly 90 gigawatt increase. 90 gigawatts is the same or more than you would get from 45 nuclear plants. The windfarms estimate is probably way too conservative. We can build them faster with a little political will to do so. Wind cost about a third of what nuclear does to build.
and that's just wind. Solar can do much more.
Denmark already has 20% wind power. Parts of Germany and Denmark have 40% wind power. We are told that wind and solar are too intermittent. Why isn't that a problem in Denmark. Could it be because they have no oil company lobby?
Pickens' plan has two good ideas, wind power and HVDC transmission lines to distribute power from windfarms in Texas and the midwest, and from solar plants in the southwest.
Trading wind for gas makes no sense because it is much more efficient to burn the gas in a power plant than in a car. And wind is too intermittant to operate as base load as gas can.
Solar thermal plants with heat storage,in the southwest, can replace coal plants with the ability to put out base load power. These plants can be built in 2 to 3 years. They can put out steady power day and night. They will provide power at 5 to 8 cents a kilowatt within five years.
Solar thermal power plants in the southwest, at rates competitive with coal and gas, could power the whole country, using less land than we now use for coal plants and mining. and the tax dollars spent over 35 years or so would be about what we now give oil companies in the form of tax credits and subsidies every 5 to 10 years.
Joseph Romm in this great article says:
"It would be straightforward to build CSP systems at whatever rate industry and governments needed, ultimately 50 to 100 gigawatts a year growth or more."
www.salon.com/news/fea...
100 gigawatts equivalant in nuclear would mean building 50 or more nukes a year. That my friend will never happen.
and
"The key attribute of CSP is that it generates primary energy in the form of heat, which can be stored 20 to 100 times more cheaply than electricity -- and with far greater efficiency"
Add photovoltaics all over the country to the solar plants in the southwest and you have solar energy on a vast scale.
The remarks about hybrids are false. Plug in hybrids would give the average driver 100 miles to the gallon overall. The higher initial cost would pay for itself in 5 years if gasoline is $1.75 a gallon. Think you'll see gas that cheap in the future?
Sensible plans are at.
www.setamericafree.org...
A Blueprint for U.S. Energy Security
www.repoweramerica.org
climateprogress.org
www.sciam.com/article....
Solar thermal a better choice than the concentrating PV emphasized here, but shows what we can do and what it will cost.
more info on solar thermal at:
solarsouthwest.org/ Solar Soutwest Initiative
All in all this article is complete rubbish
GM: Buyout Better than Bailout
Actually, Obama was elected because intelligence won out of the usual fear mongering, hate mongering, war mongering, divisive deceitful greedy no nothing racist mentality that the Republicans hoped would win.
You must be kidding if you think more tax cuts for the rich and large corporations at the expense of the rest of us is sound economic policy. Regressive taxes have never worked and never will.
Reaganomics has had over 25 years to prove itself, and it is an utter failure for 80% of Americans. Whatever wealth was created all went to the top. The facts are the facts.
And I don't believe for a minute that any wealth created during the 80s and 90s had anything to do with Reaganomics. The revolution in technology in computers, internet, telecommunication, robotics biotechnology were much bigger factors.
$9 trillion of the $10 trillion federal deficit came under the past three Republican administrations. Their deregulations brought us the savings and loan scandal and the current credit crisis.
Since Reagan came into office working wages have gone down while the rich have raked it in by the truckload.
Coporate executives saw their pay go up ten fold in the same period, when compared with workers pay. Workers now make 12% less in buying power than workers 30 years ago made.
McCain's energy program is lame. Solar and Wind can be built and be up and running two to three times faster than the nukes he favors. And they are both cheaper. And neither will need any fuel ever- to prospect for, mine, transport, store, refine, burn, clean up the mess from or fight wars over. If we build nuclear on a large scale we will be looking at peak uranium before we can even get them built. We import 90% of our uranium. How does that give us energy independence?
transitionculture.org/.../
Link to The Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy"
I'm not saying we shouldn't consider nuclear at all, but it shouldn't be the priority when better choices are available.
One of nuclear's biggest problems is the vast quantities of water required to cool the plants. In a water strained world that's won't be good thing.
Drill baby Drill is less than a bandaid.
Are you already blaming Obama for the economy like that idiot Sean Hannity?
Solar Companies Overseas: Where the Sun Don't Shine No More
You are uninformed or misinformed. Do some research. PV will be cheaper than fossil fuel energy in a few years. In fact it probably already is cheaper if you look at a levelized comparison, adding in the real cost of externalities of fossil fuels. This will be much more obvious when a cap and trade or similar system is in place.
Nanosolar can already build a solar system cheaper than you can build a coal fired power plant. And it won't need any coal or environmental remediation.
Four Stock Picks for an Obama Administration
You said:
"Unless Obama is prepared to give tax breaks to utilities with wind farm and solar projects, it isn't going to happen. With the financial, automotive and other unforeseen future bailouts he has to hand out, tax breaks for alternative energy are not viable in the current economic climate."
Investing in renewable energy is what will help to put the economy back on track. This will be Obama's top priority. Oil, gas, coal and nuclear are much more heavily subsidized than renewable energy.
The argument that renewables shouldn't be invested in because they need subsidies is ridiculous. A better argument is that oil shouldn't be subsidized with oil companies being mature companies making obscene profits. Last December, the democrats' proposal was to take $21 billion in tax credits away from oil companies and apply it to renewables. This represented 1% of oil company profits and about 1/4 of the total subsidies and tax credits they enjoy. And of course, Republicans stripped the bill and watered down the CAFE standards asked for. That won't happen now, guaranteed. So don't talk to me about expensive tax breaks for solar and wind. It is absurd and misleading.
We will now subsidise the future instead of the past.
NG energy is not cheaper than wind when you add the externalities of fossil fuels. As soon as we have cap and trade in place, you will see the real cost of fossil fuels.
Oil does not presently compete with either solar or wind, because only 2% of the energy grid is from oil. Eventually cars will run on electricity provided by clean energy, but till then this is a bad comparison. Price is not the only determinant. Energy independence, national security, the economic devestation caused by our addiction to oil and the concern for the environment will trump price comparisons going forward.
You said:
"Natural gas is the only alternative energy source that is clean, abundant, and proven"
That is absolutely not true. Wind and sun are clean, abundant and proven. Solar thermal power plants in the southwest will be a kingpin for a clean energy grid in the future. They will compete directly with gas and coal on cost even without figuring in the externalities of the fossil fuels.
Under an Obama administration I would expect subsidies for renewable to go up, if anything. and I would expect more states to follow the example of California, requiring utilities to get more energy from renewables.
www.salon.com/news/fea...
Great article on solar thermal and why it's a must for a future clean energy grid.
There are better energy plans than T.Boone Pickens' plan.
His plan to build wind farms and HVDC transmission lines is sound and agrees with other energy plans. But his idea to replace gas plants with wind power won't fly. Wind is too intermittant to directly replace gas fired plants. Besides, if we are going to shut down fossil plants as renewables come on line, it will be coal plants that are shut down, not gas. The other weakness of his plan is that gas used in power plants is much more economical than gas used in vehicles. The efficiency difference is large. To divert NG from power generation to running cars is a lose lose scenario.
Cars of the future will be plug in hybrids and electrics. It is much more efficient and cost effective to use the natural gas to power the grid, along with renewable sources, and power cars with electricity and biofuels and or flexfuels.
The renewable energy source that can do what gas and coal plants do is solar thermal with heat storage. It can operate as base load, follow on, or peaker plants. But these will displace coal, not gas.
An added benefit of phasing out coal is that it will free up huge amounts of rail freight capacity. This will save fuel and money shipping other goods and materials over long distances. Trains are much more efficient for long haul than trucks.
Six Reasons for Cloudy Skies on the Solar Energy Industry
Yeah, I want a few of those in my back yard. Let's spread the availability of fissionable materials and nuclear waste around the world where everyone who wants some can get their hands on it.
Will we have curbside pick up of the radioactive waste too?
Are you nuts?
Nuclear power does NOT have a small carbon footprint. The only time that is true is after the fuel rods are in place and producing power. Every single step in the process is carbon intensive.
Read the Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy.
www.theleaneconomyconn...
and this:
www.cleanwisconsin.org...
It isn't sustainable in any way. How about peak uranium in ten years or so.
Nuclear power requires enormous amounts of water for cooling. In a world facing water problems in the future, we don't need that.
Nuclear power doesn't give us energy independence. We import 65% of our oil and 90% of our uranium. And now Russia is being lined up as a future source of 20% of our uranium.
Nuclear power is not safe. According to Argonne National Laboratory, an airliner crashing into a nuclear power plant could cause a complete meltdown, even if the containment building isn't compromised. Think the twin towers disaster was bad?
The transportation of radioactive waste from all over the country to Yucca Mt. is potentially dangerous, as well as expensive
There is no accountability with nuclear power. The Price-Anderson Act places most of the liability for nuclear accidents on the backs of taxpayers, not the nuclear power industry.
A nuclear power plant costs about $4,000 per kilowatt hour to build, compared with $1,400 per KWH for wind energy.
Wind and solar are much quicker to get up and running than nuclear or coal. And both can start generating power before large wind or solar farms are completed, because they are modular in design
Nuclear power is heavily subsidized. According to Earthtrack, Federal subsidies to new nuclear power plants are likely between 4 and 8 cents per kWh (levelized).
Every nuclear power plant will require at least $500 million to dismantlet, when it has outlived it's useful life. This adds to the nuclear waste disposal problem.
from the Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy
""The world’s endowment of uranium ore is now so depleted that the nuclear industry will never, from its own resources, be able to generate the energy it needs to clear up its own backlog of waste."
"Shortages of uranium – and the lack of realistic alternatives –leading to interruptions in supply, can be expected to start in the middle years of the decade 2010-2019, and to deepen thereafter."
"Every stage in the nuclear process, except fission, produces carbon dioxide. As the richest ores are used up, emissions will rise."
"Nuclear energy certainly has disadvantages, quite apart from the clincher problem of the depletion of its fuel. It is a source of low-level radiation which may be more dangerous than was previously thought. It is a source of high-level waste which has to be sequestered. Every stage in the process produces lethal waste, including the mining and leaching processes, the milling, the enrichment and the decommissioning. It is very expensive. It is a terrorist target and its enrichment processes are stepping stones to the production of nuclear weapons."
And the more we use up the low hanging fruit, the more radioactive tailings there will be as we try to squeeze a few ounces out of more and more tons of earth.
Now they tell us we can get uranium from sea water. sounds good until you find out we would have to filter 40,000 cubic miles of sea water every year to supply 200 reactors. How much energy would that take, if it were possible?
And nowhere do you mention solar thermal power plants which should be the kingpin of a clean energy grid. They can operate day and night and be used as base load, follow on, or peaker plants, exactly fitting their output to the daily energy demand cycle.
We could power the whole country with these, using less land than we now use for coal plants and coal mines. And they will compete head on with fossil fuel plants cost wise.
www.salon.com/news/fea...
Excellent article on solar thermal.
The Biggest Problem Detroit's Big Three Face
If you are a senior studying economics, my advice is don't get too hung up on the religion of free market economics. This is the real world out here, and dogmatic economic theories followed as if they were a fundamentalist religion are not realistic. Ever notice how the free market cult is the same group who supports corporate influence pedaling in congress? The very large corporations that are obstacles to a level playing field of competition are the same entities preaching free market economics. It's pretzel logic. I'm sure the management of Wallmart are big proponents of the free market for instance. Meanwhile they are the biggest obstacle to a free market in
retailing. Also, free markets run based on demand, not the supply side economics of the past 25 years.
Reminds me of a joke made by Steven Colbert on his TV show. They were talking about global warming and polar bears. Colbert jokingly asked "can't we just let the free market decide which animals we let go extinct?" That's only a slight exageration of the extent to which some adhere to this theory as a cure for everything.
Not to say the theory has no merit.
Hypothetically, what if we were facing ecological collapse due to pollution and global warming, while at the same time we were not near peak oil. Let's say we had abundant supplies of oil to keep down prices. And let's assume that alternative energy was more expensive than the abundant cheap oil. I think you can see where the free market would lead us. We would never make a transition to clean energy, because the free market would prevent it.
It's odd, how many adhere religiously to the soft science of economics while eschewing the hard science of climate change.
The Pickens Plan Changes Its Strategy
Rail is much better for long haul than trucks, much more efficient.
One problem with Picken's plan that immediately jumped out at me, is that what we really need to phase out is coal fired plants, as they are the dirtiest by far.
I forget the numbers, but coal transport accounts for a huge percentage of our rail capacity. As coal is phased out, it will free up rail freight capacity for other materials/products.
There are other problems with Picken's plan, which are analysed in depth at the following article from Climate Progress.
climateprogress.org/20.../
Windfarms can't function as peaker power plants as gas plants often do.
The most promising renewable energy solution for replacing coal fired plants is solar thermal power in the southwest. Solar thermal plants can operate as base load, follow on, or peaker power plants. No other renewable energy can do this.
A must read article on solar thermal and it's potential and how critical it is too a sensible energy policy for the future is at.
www.salon.com/news/fea...
Solar thermal is perfectly suited to the energy demand cycle during the day and can provide power at night. Thermal storage is at least 20 times more efficient than electric storage.
As Solar Plummets, Stocks Drop Below Book Value
Renewable energy is already cheaper than fossil fuels if you include the externalities of fossil fuels. These externalities or hidden costs are real. A cap and trade or carbon tax should level the playing field.
There are financing plans that make it easier for homeowners to pay for solar panels. For example, Berkeley CA recently approved a plan to sell bonds to finance solar on homes. Any homeowner in Berkeley can get solar panels installed with no upfront payment.
The cost of the solar will be paid off each year when the homeowner pays property taxes. If the house is sold, the next owner picks up the payments.
There's not reason why this can't be done all over the country. It helps.
In commercial projects, there are power purchase agreements that mean the end user doesn't pay for the installation.
The cost of solar panels is coming down fast. And the efficiency is improving. Some companies like Nanosolar and First Solar are close to $1 a watt which makes them competititve with fossil fuels even without considering externalities. Nanosolar says they can build a utility scale solar system cheaper than you can build a coal fired power plant. And it won't need any coal, or pollutions to clean up.
The solar technology that will replace coal and gas power plants is solar thermal. When it is up to scale, it will be directly competitive with fossil fuel plants. As author and scientist Joseph Romm says, it is the only source of renewable energy that fits the needs of the electric grid and can produce the power necessary to replace coal and gas. This is particularly true of solar thermal with heat storage. Heat storage can extend the hours of operation into the night, and keep the output steady when clouds pass over.
This is a must read article:
www.salon.com/news/fea...
Solar thermal can produce power 24/7
It's a sign of how misinformed Americans are, that probably 80% of Americans have never heard of what is our best option for renewable energy. Solar thermal can operate as base load, follow on, and peaker power plants. And it fits perfectly with the power demand cycle during each day.
Combine these with wind farms and the distributed energy of PV all over the country and you have the solution to the energy crisis.
No nukes needed. Think nukes are the way to go? Read this and think again.
www.theleaneconomyconn...
Nuclear is not sustainable in any way shape or form. Period.
Seven Companies Profiting From Obama's 'New' New Deal
To rewrite history, making claims that FDR was a bad president are beyond rubbish. Those claims are categorically untrue.
Maybe if you had been there when millions of citizens cheered FDR, when the nation as a whole adored him, you would have a different perspective.
It is no accident that he was elected three times. He not only instituted measures which helped milliions of workers have some self respect as well as make a living during the depression.
He improved the infrastructure in a big big way. The depression didn't immediately go away as a result of his actions, because of the depth of the economic contraction, not because his policies were wrong or ineffective. That's why it took WW2 to bring it to an end. Then he donned the hat of commander in chief and famously led the country with inspiration and strength to a victory in WW2
Sure he wasn't perfect and made some mistakes. Social security, a labor movement, the SEC, the GI bill, th FDIC,
and many other programs that led to the great growth of the middle class of workers in the 50s and 60s were hallmarks of his leadership.
You extremists on the right, would be calling Dwight Eisenhower a socialist if he were alive today. Yes the Allied Commander of Europe actually had the temerity to speak up for the interests of working people. And you would be calling him unAmerican for speaking out against the dangers of the military industrial complex.
Your ideology blinds you to common sense. You are so blinded by your ideology that science is a communist plot to many of you.
You are so out of step with where the American public is that you are under the delusion that it is liberals who are too extreme. From where you are looking at things, way out there on the extreme right, everything looks red or pink. Americans are predominantly liberal despite the claims that Republican talking heads keep making that Ameicans are center right. It just isn't so.
The recent election indicates the same.
Conservatives have done a good job a branding the word liberal as a four letter word. As a result, when asked if they are liberals, most people are afraid to say yes. But if you ask them how they feel about individual issues, something like 70% answer with opinions that are decidedly liberal. They have bought into the rights fascination with labels. Everytime anyone proposes anything that isn't a giveaway to the rich, those on the right are ready can't wait to throw out those old red baiting labels. I guess it's easier than thinking.
If not for the policies of FDR, we would have absolutely no worker's rights, no unemployment, not sick pay, no vacations, no retirement, no GI bill, no federal loan programs for housing, and would still be working 12 hour days six or seven days a week for lousy pay in dangerous conditions.
But wait. the days of the robber barrons are back. We now, thanks to Reaganomics, have the worst distribution of wealth since 1929. Working wages have actually gone down while the rich have been getting fat on our labor. Labor is the source of wealth, not capital. Capital is the result of wealth. Labor is the engine of the economy. Nothing is worth anything without labor. It only makes sense that labor should get a fair share of the pie. Republican economics have killed the American dream. They have killed off organized labor and are responsible for $9 trilliion of the $10 trillion federal deficit. It is their deregulation that brought about the Savings and Loan scandal and the current credit mess.
Regressive tax schemes have never worked and never will. Top down economics is criminal.
Investing in renewable energy and conservation is the only thing that will save our economy. It will kill 4 birds with one stone, economy, environment, energy and national security. Oil is ruining our economy and our environment and making us less secure.
We won't be "gambling" on renewable energy as Gary Lucido says. I would advise him to get informed because he doesn't have a clue what he is talking about. Get informed and stop making statements about things you are completely ignorant about. You have bought into the propaganda that says renewable energy can't power the country. That is categorically not true. Here are some websites where you might learn something.
www.sciam.com/article....
www.setamericafree.org...
www.pluginpartners.org/
www.repoweramerica.org/
energysolutionswecanbe...
www.salon.com/news/fea...
Think nuclear is the answer? Think again.
www.theleaneconomyconn...
www.cleanwisconsin.org...
Nuclear power is not sustainable in any way shape or form.
You are being fooled if you believe otherwise.
To What Extent Is Alternative Energy Performance Linked to Fossil Energy Prices?
Your assumptions are based on absolute disregard for the environmental impact of continuing to do what we are doing. You remind me of what Colbert said on his TV show, (jokingly- he is a critic of the free market religion) "Can't we just let the market decide which animal species go extinct?"
His comment (joke) is only slightly more absurd than the way some free marketeers think.
Solar is already at grid parity in some parts of the country which are very sunny and also have high electric rates. Nanosolar says they can now build a utility scale solar farm cheaper than you can build a coal fired plant. And the solar farm won't ever ever need any coal, or any other fuel. No fuel ever to prospect for, mine, transport, store, refine, burn, clean up the mess from, or fight wars over. Solar industry people say we are just a few years away from grid parity. The whole country will be at grid parity by 2018 at the latest. Has it ever occurred to those of you, who think the market should be the only determinant, that we have developed our industrialized technologically advanced civilization at the expense of the earth? And has it ever occurred to you that maybe we owe the earth a little? And even if you can't make that big a stretch, maybe you can understand the meaning of sustainability. What isn't sustainable, the earth cannot support. The earth is finite, not infinite. The way we are conducting business as usual on this planet is simply not sustainable, period. If changing to sustainablility costs us a little economically, so be it. There really is no other choice, we either do things sustainably or the earth will cease to support us, period. In other words, a little sacrificing on the part of humans is not a ridiculous idea.
The amount by which we subsidize renewable energy is miniscule compared with the amount of subsidies to oil, gas,coal and nuclear. So the argument that solar and wind are losers, because they need subsidies, is absurd. According to one estimate, we now give oil and gas companies about $84 billion annually in tax credits and subsidies. We are subsidizing the most profitable companies in the world and we are subsidizing the past instead of the future.
Think nuclear is the answer? Better read "The Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy" www.theleaneconomyconn...
and this:
www.cleanwisconsin.org...
www.sciam.com/article....
This proposal published by Scientific American would provide a 69% solar powered grid by 2050, spending less tax dollars over the next 35 years or so than the above oil company subsidies would amount to over 5 years.
And less tax dollars than were spent to build the internet over the past 35 years. It would use less land for solar power plants, in the southwest deserts, than we now use for coal mining.
Add wind and other renewables to what we can do with solar and we will be able to phase out fossil fuels, starting with older coal plants.
While oil and solar are not presently comparable, since we only get about 1% of our electricity from oil,(which brings up the question of- why are solar stocks seen as coupled to the price of oil?) a clean electric grid could power much of our transportation with the use of PHEVs and EVs..
For more on oil and gas subsidies and the hidden costs of oil see:
www.setamericafree.org...
Defining a Depression
I find it amazing that you have nothing to say except to bash Al Gore and Joe Biden, when the current mess is a result of Republican economic policies. Reaganomics doesn't work! Reaganomics doesn't work. Reaganomics doesn't work. PERIOD
Someday, you may understand this simple truth.
When Reagan was elected we had a $1 trillion federal deficit. Since then Republican administration have ratcheted up that figure to $10 trillion. When Reagan was elected, corporate executives were paid about 25 times what their workers earned. They now make 250 to 400 times as much. At the same time, workers wages have actually gone down. A middle age worker now makes 12% less than his father did in real buying power.
Between 1983 and 2004, the top 1% got 33% of the growth in wealth. The next 4% got over 25%.
The bottom 80% of us got 11% of the growth. The bottom 40% got negative growth.
That my friend is not the American dream. Regressive tax schemes never have worked and never will work.
Now those of you who love this giveaway to the rich, complain that giving a tax break to the working people is socialism. Wow.
None of you seem to understand the simple truth that every successful economy in the world is a mixed economy. It's what works. But that isn't good enough for you because you are stuck on labels like socialism. You are stuck on ideology that has proven not to work. Reaganomics has had over 25 years to prove itself and it is a complete failure for 80% of Americans.
The claim that Reaganomics created wealth is not true to begin with. What created wealth was the revolution in technology, computers, internet, robotics, telecommunications, biotechnology etc.
First Solar and Solarfun May Defy Short-Term Weakness in Solar Sector
Are you among the ignorant, who still don't get that human life is 100% dependent on healthy earth econsystems?
You cannot separate what happens to wildlife from what happens to man. Don't you watch those National Geographic shows? Only someone who lives in a cave still doesn't understand that all life is interconnected in an interdependent way.
Our survival as a species is completely dependent on the suvival of other species. Period.
Maybe you missed the state of the world report last week from the World Wildlife Federation, which stated that at present consumption rates we would need two planets to sustain us.
It said we will be in deep trouble as early as 2030. The earth is finite. What we are doing in not sustainable by the earth. Period.
I'll take survival of the species over a strong GDP any day. If we wake up and start doing things in a sustainable way, especially when it comes to energy, we can continue to live well with a healthy economy. If we don't wake up, the economy will fail and that will be the least of our worries. Oh you don't believe in global warming. Ok, but beliefs are irrelevent when it comes to science. You might want to visit my blog at energysolutionswecanbe...
You will learn a few things about the so called scientific debate over global warming, and see that we do have the solutions. We just need the Ludites to wake up so we can get down to the business of fixing the problem.