Discussion on:

The energy transition juggernaut

Who's going to build the renewable electrical infrastructure hardware? China.
Who's going to build the renewable wind power infrastructure hardware? Korea.
The US is already so far in debt to these countries that it's hard to see how you'll give up domestic supplies and manufacturing and be able to pay for it, even if you can actually make it work. (variable power hard for the network to handle, etc.)

The U.S isn't in debt to *these* countries (by the way, outside of China, which countries are those?), they bought US bonds, publicly traded. With sufficient capital, and a retail trading account, you could buy those same bonds. That doesn't mean the U.S is in debt to you, it meant you bought a bond that returns a specified (variable) interest rate. No more, no less.

If China decided to sell those bonds en masse, it would be ******* itself. No functioning U.S economy, no functioning world economy. China is the factory and the EU, and U.S are the customers. No customer, no factory. This is why for all the sabre-rattling, China takes care not to rub the E.U or the U.S too far the wrong way. There are no independent economies any more; what effects one, effects the other.
Also as an aside, if you dislike that the east functions as the factory of the west, look around your home and see how many MADE IN CHINA/TAIWAN/MALAYASIA stamps you can find on your goods for some shock-horror fun.

As for making it work. Currently the grid is akin to plumbing, a constant water (power) pressure is provided to ensure adequate supply at the terminus point. There is no real command and control of the flow. Infrastructure changes, and software implementation would fix that. The grid then goes from dumb plumbing to an intelligent system more akin to the workings of computer.
Good battery technology exists to serve baseload, all it needs is the aggregate demand to reduce costs, this would enable baseload requirements with ease while using renewable. ALL of this is possible, ALL of this would create jobs, and an enviromental benefit. The barriers that exist are fictions of money (if they can 'quantitive ease' in the billions, they can sure as **** implment the above.), and personal interests--*cough* Koch *cough*.

All of that said, even IF the components were manufactured outside the U.S., short of a massive migratory workforce, it would still provide abundant jobs within the U.S to assemble the components and install the infrastructure.

Seriously, ask why the hell oil and coil receive billions in subsidies for mature profit making industries, that constantly reduces or outsources it's workforce. Then ask why should renewables not receive the same for a nascent industry that would have no choice but to employ within the U.S. for implementation.

You nailed it

Jobs program waiting to happen.

To think if Reagan had followed Carter and would have kept the push for renewables going back in 1980. We would be enjoying 30 years of advancements.

Instead of leading us into the future. He clung to the past.

Hopefully we start electing leaders with vision and guts.

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.

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???

Basically, the author of the above article must not know about this new energy technology LENR Ni-H, which save us lots of money cutting our GHG emissions.

"A volume about the size of a #2 pencil eraser of water provides as much energy as two 48-gallon drums of gasoline. That is 355,000 times the amount of energy per volume ??? five orders of magnitude." ( http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/New-LENR-Machine-is-the-Best-Yet.html ).

This phenomenon (LENR) has been confirmed in hundreds of published scientific papers: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf

"Over 2 decades with over 100 experiments worldwide indicate LENR is real, much greater than chemical..." --Dennis M. Bushnell, Chief Scientist, NASA Langley Research Center

"Total replacement of fossil fuels for everything but synthetic organic chemistry." --Dr. Joseph M. Zawodny, NASA

By the way, here is a survey of all the companies that are bringing LENR to commercialization: http://www.cleantechblog.com/2011/08/the-new-breed-of-energy-catalyzers-ready-for-commercialization.html

The potential for an unlimited source of power, with no ill side effects (pollution), is so enticing that it was worth investigation. However, after nearly 15 years of research, with no reproducible results, changing the name will not alter the results.

before claiming to know the results! I repeat the most pertinent:

This phenomenon (LENR) has been confirmed in hundreds of published scientific papers: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf

Read 'em Steve, then come back and talk about "no reproducible results".

Ol' Bab

www.newenergytimes.com is the only LENR site that is not selling something, being paid to promote something or basically fishing for money.
Anyone interested in examining all of the "published" papers and relevant info on LENR should visit this site. I know of no other site that is simply reporting the truth about LENR without trying to get people to invest in a pipe dream.
So Ol' Bab, "follow the links before claiming to know the results!" When you actually research LENR you will then be able to criticize others. Reading propaganda sites is not research.

The opening sentence of this piece exposes its conceit: "Poll after poll show that citizens of the Western world want more renewable power and are willing to pay for it. So whats the hold-up?"

Perhaps reality. If any of this were the least bit true, we wouldn't need government prodding the energy marketplace into making these changes. It already would have happened. The only purpose of polls like this is to provide political cover for what politicians want to impose.

Polls about what people say they are hypothetically willing to pay are absolutely meaningless. Is it really a surprise that the majority of people will respond with a politically/ecologically correct answer to a poll that when that answer to a hypothetical question costs them absolutely nothing? You might as well ask if people are in favor of clubbing baby harp seals. I'm sure they'd say they'd be happy to pay higher taxes to prevent that too.

Talk is cheap. It's what people actually do with their money that counts.

But don't just believe me. The President's energy policy has always been about making energy more expensive; He and his energy secretary are on the record favoring $8/gallon gasoline. (And if the goal is to get people to use less of it, then this is the correct policy) And yet, what is one of the biggest election year issues right now? $4 gasoline, and that same President says "I want gas prices lower because they hurt families; because I meet folks every day who have to drive a long way to get to work and them filling up this gas tank gets more and more painful, and its a tax out of their pocketbooks, out of their paychecks, and a lot of folks are already operating on the margins right now.

So why is he lying when all your polls tell us that everyone doesn't mind higher energy costs?

I guess he hasn't seen all your polls. People really want higher energy prices! No wonder he's going to lose. He's not touting his own supposedly popular policy!

John,

Unlike people like you and me most people are not that conscious of how they spend their money. They won't go out of their way to to make the choice for renewable power but just want it to become part of their bill with no extra effort on their part.

Regarding your comments on the President's energy policy, it's amazing how people twist things to suit their own biases or agenda. Here is an essay on the very subject from FactCheck.org

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/03/obama-wanted-higher-gasoline-prices/

...and they are also greedy. When they say they don't mind that prices go up, what they usually mean is that they don't mind if other people's prices go up. It's no different than the President's gutless tax and health care policies. Everyone is in favor of raising taxes on someone else.

Which, of course, is why it's impossible to take such surveys the lest bit seriously. Again, the only purpose they serve is providing political cover.

As for the President's "policy", I'll just quote he and Secretary Chu directly instead of relying upon the Annenberg Foundation to spin it: "Somehow, we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe."

Hard to take that out of context.

Again, I don't dispute their strategy. It's valid. What disgusts me is their rank dishonesty.

"Somehow, we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe."

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 "all of the above" 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 "fractivist" 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.

...one would have to make the logical assumption that Obama appointed precisely because of his beliefs, not in spite of them.

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 "all of the above" 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.

...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 "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?"

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.

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.

Keep being a parrot for GOP talking points.

You really believe Mittens has a clue.

What is GOP energy policy.

Drill Baby Drill

Stick your head back in the sand.

I guess you're not paying attention.

Obama energy plan = all of the above = solar + wind + nukes + fracking + offshore drilling

Nelder = Obama critic = peak oil believer = shale energy denialist

...why don't you refute my hypothesis? What did I say that is untrue?

Cheap talk indeed.

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.

The President's energy secretary from 2008: "Somehow, we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe."

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 "...if the goal is to get people to use less of it, then this is the correct policy". 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.

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.

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 "tax", but a "contribution". It's hypocritical of Democrats and Republicans to decry the state of Social Security while voting to literally defund it.

"Poll after poll show that citizens of the Western world want more renewable power and are willing to pay for it. So what???s the hold-up?" For one thing, they are willing to pay more for renewable energy as long as someone else does the paying. Many if not most of these wonderful people clamoring for renewable energy have no clue the bulk of the funding for it are paid by taxes.

I live off-grid and do so not because it is cost-effective because it is not. I simply choose not to be dependent on the flailing of politicians and the ignorantly hysterical masses demanding their own economical demise.

Regarding LENR www.newenergytimes.com is a far more honest discussion about the feasibility of LENR.