<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.bnet.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on The energy transition juggernaut ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10453]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10453/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-05-18T19:53:58-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[reply to ShillsAreSocialToo]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10453-72084]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[My friend you are wrong on a pair of points: First In finance, a bond is a debt security, in which the authorized issuer owes the holders a debt and, depending on the terms of the bond, is obliged to pay interest (the coupon) to use and/or to repay the principal at a later date, termed maturity. A bond is a formal contract to repay borrowed money with interest at fixed intervals (semi annual, annual, sometimes monthly). So if China or me or any buy a US bond the h the holder of the bond is the lender (creditor), the issuer of the bond is the borrower (debtor), and the coupon is the interest. That it means that USA owe me or China or any other buyer. (look on Wikipedia if ou do not believe me).  Second China /Other countries and USA: America have no more the industrial capacity of before There are a lot of ware that are no more produced in America (easy examples: cellphones, industrial electric tranformers ) So you can forget to import them from China or  any other countries  if USA default on bonds. Third USA infrastructure is going down (ask what engineer associations are saying or look around) and there is no money for it and I do not see how you can forecast ???money to create alternate infrastructure???]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10453-72084]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[21 97-06]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2012 19:45:58 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Like I said above...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10453-71592]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[...people answer polls much differently than they act with their own money.  Throw in some psychology about appearances, and such polls become utterly meaningless.A stranger asks a question, and the polled person hears &quot;Are you willing to pay $162 more a year to save the planet, or are you willing to screw it all just for your own selfish desires?&quot;.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10453-71592]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[JohnMcGrew@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 10:26:40 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Transition to ????]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10453-71499]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Solar and wind energy capturing devices as well as nuclear are not alternative energy sources.  They are extensions of the fossil fuel supply system.  There is an illusion of looking at the trees and not the forest in the ???Renewable??? energy world.  Not seeing the systems, machineries, fossil fuel uses and environmental degradation that create the devices to capture the sun, wind and biofuels allows myopia and false claims of renewable, clean, green and sustainable. Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI) is only a part of the equation.  There is a massive infrastructure of mining, processing, manufacturing, fabricating, installation, transportation and the associated environmental assaults.  Each of these processes and machines may only add a miniscule amount of energy to the final component of solar or wind devices yet the devices cannot arise without them.  There would be no devices with out this infrastructure.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10453-71499]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[john Weber]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2012 13:24:12 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Increase in MY BILL !!]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10453-71463]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Where in the Hell do these people come from. Stating they surveyed a number of people and on average they would be willing to pay $162.00 more in cost, are they kidding? I always find these polls interesting because I have never known even one person that was included. I cant even afford my bill now...What else are they going to steal from people until they finally stand up and say with a unified voice, &quot; your not taking anything else from me ever again&quot;.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10453-71463]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[drumfelt@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2012 06:09:08 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[The surest way to put an end to this Green Energy idea...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10453-71448]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[is to get behind it and make it successful. If that ever happens, the current opponents of the energy sources we currently have available will most likely find some fatal fault with it. I believe most of them simply hate success and support the improbable.Those who believe that our consumption of fossil fuels is responsible for Climate Change conveniently ignore any evidence that refutes their beliefs (even to the point of inventing the data that does support them), and when Global Warming became an embarrasment they defined the problem as Climate Change. The arrogance is quite astounding, almost as though no one has the intelligence to notice the switch.The folks who are involved in the production of energy through &quot;traditional means,&quot; i.e. the combustion of fossil fuels or nuclear fuels, are required to defend their industries from their detractors who atack them through public opinion and government meddling. This is described in the article as attacking the new &quot;Green&quot; or renewable technologies and attempting to suppress them.The idea of &quot;free&quot; energy from the sun through solar cells sounds like a grand accomplishment, and I would very much like to see it work. The problems with that technology are many, and it will be probably decades before a solar cell will make economic sense. I have never seen a photovoltaic cell, for example, that would ever be able to produce the amount of energy that was required to produce the photocell itself. Somehow, the energy required to produce the photocell was never included in the cost analysis.Nothing is free. The laws of thermodynamics are not going to be revoked.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10453-71448]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[OttoKnowbetter]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 21:11:05 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[energy]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10453-71425]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[These polls illustrate one more time that if the general populace is subjected to the BIG LIE continuously they will believe it.So it is with the energy situation.  We are subjected to tremendous propaganda pressure to change the systems that work.  And then we are told we can be pure and holy if we spend more for less energy.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10453-71425]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[pauc1]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 15:27:13 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[&quot;China takes care not to rub the E.U or the U.S too far the wrong way&quot;]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10453-71424]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[What are you smoking?  We've been at war for the past several years with the systematic, government sanctioned and funded theft of Western and mostly US industries by China.  No matter who owns us, there is no funding debate worth talking about without a balanced budget and reduction of the national and states debt load. I would donate free calculators to the White House and Congress if I thought they would use them properly.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10453-71424]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[TuacaTom57]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 14:47:36 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Boulder extremely sunny and windy]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10453-71354]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[My hunch is Boulder will do fine transitioning to renewables- it's very sunny and windy in that part of the country. It's also pretty flat  - they could set up a pumped hydro storage plant without much trouble. Or just use battieries. They will pay more for juice, but perhaps not as big a penalty as you might think. Maybe 50% more  ....  which, considering the increased efficiency of newer light bulbs, air conditioners, and refrigerators, could be recouped pretty easily.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10453-71354]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[James.McMurtry]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 21:01:05 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Chu did not back down from those remarks.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10453-71319]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Chu stood by that price remark until mid 2011.He actually repeated it almost word for word in a Congressional hearing in 2009.I will bet you did not know that Chu has not owned a car in over 15 years.  Every job he had he was provided with a car and driver.  He has not had to pay for gas since he got out of collage.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10453-71319]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Hates Idiots]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 10:07:06 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[You are not looking at the whole picture]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10453-71317]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[While we make the transition, people will still have to be getting most of their electricity from coal, natural gas, and nuclear. You can't turn that stuff off one day and the next day turn on renewables. To pretend otherwise is ridiculous. So the real question is how much extra will we need to pay to make the transition.As for your friend, what does he do for electricity during the night and cloudy days? My guess is that he still is hooked up to the public utility. It's possible that your friend might even become a net electricity provider, but that's only part of the problem because he still can't provide for his needs at night or during storms. For our society as a whole to go to renewables, we have to crack the storage and variability problems. To get to 80% renewables, nobody has any idea of how to do that, or at what cost.Right now, our current infrastructure can handle about 20% renewables without major concerns about storage or the variability. See, for example, page 447 of http://www.nerc.com/files/2011%20LTRA_Final.pdf . Beyond that we face major hurdles that could significantly affect our grid's ability to provide us reliable power. What's interesting is that California and Colorado have renewable mandates which require them to get above 30% renewables by 2020 or so. These are state laws with numbers pulled out of hat; we shall soon see if they reflect reality.If you don't look at the whole system, you're missing the problem.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10453-71317]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[zackers]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 09:29:01 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I reported what a friend saw...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10453-71268]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Thanks for clarifying that your opinions are based on second hand anecdotal evidence and not real fact. You're the perfect Chris Nelder fan! Glad he's found one...]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10453-71268]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[James.McMurtry]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sat, 19 May 2012 22:12:52 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Nonsense Math?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10453-71263]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I reported what a friend saw, not myself.  I believe he said that he was flying out of Stuttgart which may very well be a city with a higher or much higher than normal solar PV presence than other German locals.  But this is just in the early stages.You got lost in your ideology which shut your brain down and caused you to set up a nonsensical equation.  First, the 19.9% is the percentage of electrical production from renewables and doesn't measure anything about the country's total energy usage.  The actual figure which measures the percentage of total energy consumed in the form of electricity is around 15%, as it is in with any modern industrial nation.  The figures I found put electricity as a percentage of total energy use at slightly over 15% for Germans and slightly under 15% for Americans.Secondly, you don't divide by a percentage, you multiply to find the percentage of total German energy use supplied by solar.  Currently the numbers and equation are 3.2% times 15% which amounts to about 1/2percent of total energy use supplied by solar, three times the amount you posted.  Yes, it's still a small percentage, but you exaggerated the smallness considerably.The point is how far the Germans have come in a very short time and where they are headed.  Note that the 20% renewable figure for electrical production only accounts for about 3% of total energy use (20%*15%).  Note also that a significant percentage today of renewables for electricity (about 40%) is from Hydro and biomass burning.  Hydro and biomass cannot grow significantly, if at all, so solar and wind must take up the slack and provide the growth.  I'm saying that even the conservative Germans think that they can get to 80-100% of electricity production from renewables by mid-century.  They know that they'd better damn well do it or suffer immeasurably, because fossils from other parts of the world will rapidly become unavailable as those folks use more and more of their own fossils and have less to export.Can they make it to keep the same energy profligacy as today?  Probably on the basis of the current energy mix, they can, but I very much doubt if the current energy mix will be similar in 2050.  By then it's likely that electricity will account for 40-50% of the energy mix, rather than 15%, as the electrical transport, industry and heating economy grows.  That makes the renewable solution 4 times as difficult and expensive.  But at least they'll be able to hunker down and survive.  We won't, if we don't get off our asses.I'm guessing that every word that Chris writes is informed by this urgency and you-all who po-po it with your cornucopian fossil fool fantasies are doing our nation great harm.  Whether it's 3 years or 20 years before the energy crunch, that crunch is inevitable and catastrophic if we don't act to deal with it now, with all speed, into renewables.  If we don't, we'll end up with a nation turned into a drilled, fracked, mined wasteland with nothing to show for it other than despair.  The time of extraction and exploitation is at a well deserved end, and its only ethical justification is to use it to bury it.And then there is climate change!]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10453-71263]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Ron Shook]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sat, 19 May 2012 10:19:13 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[You are right.  He didn't.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10453-71238]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[But after he took office in 2009, he filled his cabinet with like-minded intellectuals who's philosophies were quite clear, including Chu.  Chu  was hired because of his positions, not in spite of them.And the social security payroll tax cut is a fraud.  First of all, it's supposedly not a &quot;tax&quot;, but a &quot;contribution&quot;.  It's hypocritical of Democrats and Republicans to decry the state of Social Security while voting to literally defund it.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10453-71238]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[JohnMcGrew@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 17:02:41 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Obama didn't have an energy secretary in 2008]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10453-71243]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[You're quoting (out of context) a Berkely professor who went on to be Obama's energy professor 5 months later. I seriously doubt Obama would even in private moments discussing European style gasoline taxes without some other form of balancing tax reductions. The usual trade off here is against the social security payroll, which is a regressive tax anyway. I.e. trade a regressive tax that penalizes working for one that penalizes pollution.You seem to think Obama has flip flopped on energy. Your whole basis for this is an off the cuff remark from a Berkeley professor. Seems like you have a Fox-news level of understanding.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10453-71243]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[James.McMurtry]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 14:16:49 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I don't think I'll be the one who looks like an a$$...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10453-71234]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[...when all is said and done.First, I think you've gotten way off track here.  This thread is supposedly about a bunch of surveys that suggest that Americans are all for higher energy costs.  I say, if that's really the case, then why isn't the Obama Administration pushing that as a central campaign theme, instead of saying &quot;just from a political perspective, do you think the President of the United States going into reelection wants gas prices to go up higher?  (Laughter.)  Is that -- is there anybody here who thinks that makes a lot of sense?&quot;Which is it?Incidentally, I actually believe that higher energy prices will be what ultimately leads to solutions to the problem.  What I dislike is the dishonesty and crony capitalism that these people sell as the solution to a problem that will solve itself much better without their help.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10453-71234]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[JohnMcGrew@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 13:09:40 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[what's that well worn phrase about assumptions?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10453-71210]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[You're going to make an a$$ out of you and .... well, in this case, just out of you.Obama and Chu have a solid &quot;all of the above&quot; energy policy, with almost 4 years of consistent policy positions behind it. The point here is that, unlike the nonsense being pushed by Nelder, both the Obama administration and the American people strongly support drilling and fracking. Of course, what Chu was perhaps getting at it is some form of carbon pricing. This isn't the same thing as being against drilling and fracking. Ohio's governor Kaisch is a good example of a pro-drilling, pro-taxes-on-drilling. Part of the carbon pricing idea is that you actually raise money, which requires, you know, fossil fuel extraction and usage. And the key part of carbon pricing is that it would hit coal the hardest (at least traditional coal mining - coal gasification wouldn't fare too badly).At any rate, I'm not sure how much reality can be absorbed be someone who reads deep policy beliefs into an off-the-cuff remark by a Berkely professor.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10453-71210]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[James.McMurtry]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 12:05:08 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Considering that Chu said that before being appointed Energy Secretary...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10453-71218]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[...one would have to make the logical assumption that Obama appointed precisely because of his beliefs, not in spite of them.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10453-71218]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[JohnMcGrew@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 11:24:06 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I believe I did provide my proof.  I guess you didn't read very far.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10453-71190]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The President's energy secretary from 2008: &quot;Somehow, we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.&quot;Now, it is true that he later recanted that statement when the spotlight got a bit too hot.  But that's not the point.  Character is what you do when you don't think people are watching you, not what you do when a call comes in from the Oval Office expressing their concern.And if you'd actually read my post above, you'd have noticed that I said &quot;...if the goal is to get people to use less of it, then this is the correct policy&quot;.  But it doesn't look like you got that far.My problem isn't with $8 gas.  It's with the dishonesty of our leaders who feel they need to lie to achieve their objective.  If you wish to defend that, then go right ahead.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10453-71190]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[JohnMcGrew@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 10:24:16 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[John - look deeper into that quote]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10453-71206]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[&quot;Somehow, we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.&quot; That's from Steven Chu in Sept 2008. What was Dr. Chu doing at the time? Working as Obama's Secretary of Energy? Nope. Obama was campaigning for President, and Chu was a professor at Berkely. So you're not quoting President Obama directly, nor are you quoting any of his cabinet members. You're just making yourself look silly.Chu and Obama have consistently pursued an &quot;all of the above&quot; energy policy while actually in office and enacting policy. They have never wavered from a pro-nuclear position, even after Fukushima. They have never wavered from a pro-offshore-drilling position, even after Deepwater Horizon. And, if anything, their position on fracking has become more friendly to industry. It seems reasonable to point to Obama's significantly pro-fracking 2012 SOTU speech, followed by proposed drilling standards so industry friendly that they were endorsed by the Wall Street Journal (!), as the beginning of the end of the &quot;fractivist&quot; movement. So John, perhaps get off that high horse and do a little research before you try to portray Obama and Chu as having drunk the sort of kool aide Nelder is pushing here. People are lazy - yourself included.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10453-71206]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[James.McMurtry]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 10:14:04 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[So much opinion]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10453-71198]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Sadly, we are lazy. So lazy, it seems, that we don't even challenge our own beliefs anymore.  John, you have not proven any hypothesis, only provided anecdotal opinion to support your position. riverrat1 already refuted you with this link:http://www.factcheck.org/2012/03/obama-wanted-higher-gasoline-prices/ So I put the onus on you to prove your side as well. Read your history. Had the government not subsidized oil development when in it's infancy, it would have taken decades more to get anywhere, if it would have at all. If not for government funding, the railroads would not have been built. If not for government funding, we'd have lousy hihgways, phone systems, agriculture - EVERY ASPECT OF YOUR LIFE relies on government funding in some way. Why should renewable energy be any different? Sometimes good things need a kick-start because we, the public, don't seem to care enough to make things happen until we have absolutely no other option.If $8 per gallon of gas is what it takes to shift energy management through private means, then I say let it go to $20, and the sooner the better.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10453-71198]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[ThinkMore]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 09:41:30 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

