Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

[LynahFan]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

Are we going to lead alternative energy or should we subsidize 'drill baby drill'? The real question is how bad do we want to own a major growth technology and the industry that accompanies it. Unfortunately as a conflicted nation, if you don't decide...you've made your decision.

Well, you might have known that I couldn't resist commenting on a solar energy story...

In this case, however, I think an "emerging market" like India might be one of the few places where solar can make some sense. When you don't already have a massive distribution infrastructure and you're dealing with customers with low expectations (when you've never had ANY power, a small solar panel will that works some of the time seem pretty cool), you can probably deliver a product that people will pay for. To install a central power plant, you have to find 10,000+ customers in one geographic area who are all willing to sign up at once. With solar, you can work with individual customers in widely scattered locations.

Still not going to be viable in the first world market, though.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

Well, you might have known that I couldn't resist commenting on a solar energy story...

In this case, however, I think an "emerging market" like India might be one of the few places where solar can make some sense. When you don't already have a massive distribution infrastructure and you're dealing with customers with low expectations (when you've never had ANY power, a small solar panel will that works some of the time seem pretty cool), you can probably deliver a product that people will pay for. To install a central power plant, you have to find 10,000+ customers in one geographic area who are all willing to sign up at once. With solar, you can work with individual customers in widely scattered locations.

Still not going to be viable in the first world market, though.

Don't know that I'd go that far. First, its all about preexisting infrastructure. Eastern Europe has and possibly will for the forseeable future have a much higher penetration rate of cell phones than the US...just because they never had landlines. That doesn't mean that the US didn't dump landlines and adopt cellular with huge upfront investments when it became reasonable. You could say...well the benefits of cellular over landlines would make that a foregone conclusion. Well the same thing happened with VHS to DVD to electronic distribution. Solutions don't have to be laden with massive benefits to be adopted...but rather just naturally better solutions.

In the case of solar and other alternatives, the cost is the limiting factor. That's it. And we've seen costs continue to drop like a rock. If you think that costs will 'never' get to low enough to be adopted, there' some swampland.... Even today, much of it comes down to soft costs, such as financing to get the panels in. All in all, its coming not in 5 years...but solar will be here in our lifetime.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

In the case of solar and other alternatives, the cost is the limiting factor. That's it. And we've seen costs continue to drop like a rock. If you think that costs will 'never' get to low enough to be adopted, there' some swampland.... Even today, much of it comes down to soft costs, such as financing to get the panels in. All in all, its coming not in 5 years...but solar will be here in our lifetime.

You're only considering part of the cost. The real estate and maintenance (cleaning) costs don't go away no matter how low the panel price goes. I have a former colleague who worked for a solar company for a while. They had a workable, but low-margin, business case for installing a 10 MW plant. Unfortunately, in order to meet their contractually required output, they ended up having to clean the entire array twice before going on line, at a cost of $150K per cleaning. That made the difference in viability, and the project went bust.

When you say "solar will be here in our lifetime," what do you mean, specifically? I'll throw out my definition: for solar to be "here" would mean that more than 50% of electricity produced is from solar AND the total amount of electricity produced per capita is within 15% of what we generate today. That will not happen in the US in my, or anyone else's, lifetime.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

You're only considering part of the cost. The real estate and maintenance (cleaning) costs don't go away no matter how low the panel price goes. I have a former colleague who worked for a solar company for a while. They had a workable, but low-margin, business case for installing a 10 MW plant. Unfortunately, in order to meet their contractually required output, they ended up having to clean the entire array twice before going on line, at a cost of $150K per cleaning. That made the difference in viability, and the project went bust.

When you say "solar will be here in our lifetime," what do you mean, specifically? I'll throw out my definition: for solar to be "here" would mean that more than 50% of electricity produced is from solar AND the total amount of electricity produced per capita is within 15% of what we generate today. That will not happen in the US in my, or anyone else's, lifetime.

It doesn't surprise me that some past projects have failed. That's extremely common in innovation...disruptive technologies are always accompanied by a rocky track record. At the rate the industry is moving internationally, we have no reason to think that you friends experience will be the same experience in 5 years.

There is no question that there are obstacles. But given time, the the largest obstacles are not technology. Imagine if alternatives were not fighting arguably the richest and most influential commercial entities in the world (all of which have one goal in mind...limit alternatives).

Likewise I think engineers are part of the problem. 50 years ago, engineers were the most creative people in society. Now out of the box thinkers are going elsewhere. US engineers are often between not being able to look outside of a local system and just deciding 'its not possible'...as with the US auto industry vs. Tesla, a little startup with a couple of years under its belt and almost no relative experience. I still laugh about the story of how a few years ago some engineers on this site were swearing that laws of physics dictated that it was impossible for an automobile to ever get better than 73 mpg or some such. 'Its impossble, you can't break the laws of physics'.

Regarding 'solar in our lifetime'...you and I differ on what is needed here. Again, I'm not an engineer though...more of a consumate business, technology strategist. Oil makes up 36% of US energy consumption today. So 50% is not needed...15% would have a game changing impact on prices, innovation and US energy markets. And based on current global trajectories, it will happen in our lifetimes.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

There is no question that there are obstacles. But given time, the the largest obstacles are not technology.

I agree that the technology isn't the problem - which means that the technology cannot be the solution, either. Even with 100% efficient PV cells that were free to produce, you couldn't "get there," and not because of politics or entrenched interest groups, either.

Likewise I think engineers are part of the problem. 50 years ago, engineers were the most creative people in society. Now out of the box thinkers are going elsewhere. US engineers are often between not being able to look outside of a local system and just deciding 'its not possible'...as with the US auto industry vs. Tesla, a little startup with a couple of years under its belt and almost no relative experience. I still laugh about the story of how a few years ago some engineers on this site were swearing that laws of physics dictated that it was impossible for an automobile to ever get better than 73 mpg or some such. 'Its impossble, you can't break the laws of physics'.

You're holding Tesla up as a model for success? What does failure look like? Which car is rated better than 73 MPG (not MPGe) by the EPA? (answer: none)

Regarding 'solar in our lifetime'...you and I differ on what is needed here. Again, I'm not an engineer though...more of a consumate business, technology strategist. Oil makes up 36% of US energy consumption today. So 50% is not needed...15% would have a game changing impact on prices, innovation and US energy markets. And based on current global trajectories, it will happen in our lifetimes.

So your metric is whether we've replaced US oil consumption with solar, but your confidence comes from looking at "global" trajectories? Hmmmm... In any case, that would mean that my metric would change to be that the total output from US solar plants would need to be the same 36% of all US energy consumption AND that total energy consumption has not dropped by more than 15% per capita. Unfortunately for you, you just RAISED the bar, not lowered it, because I had only been considering electricity use before. 36% of all consumption > 50% of electricity consumption. So I'm even MORE confident that your target will not be achieved.

 

[joecct]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

Engineers will always be creative - when not shackled by the accountants and marketing people. See Chrysler.

But - how many engineering grads from US colleges are US citizens? Are our secondary school systems stifling creativity, so necessary for engineering, in lieu of conformity?

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

Engineers will always be creative - when not shackled by the accountants and marketing people. See Chrysler.

But - how many engineering grads from US colleges are US citizens? Are our secondary school systems stifling creativity, so necessary for engineering, in lieu of conformity?

I wouldn't say so muhc them stifling creativity so much as it is that today's engineers are just people that are good with Excel and Powerpoint.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

Which car is rated better than 73 MPG (not MPGe) by the EPA? (answer: none)

Looking back on our lifetime, businesses used typewriters and wrote accounting logs in the 70s. Going forward, most experts believe that innovation will continue to accelerate at rates never seen before...to the point that by 2050 technology will be hardly recognizable. There are many out there who don't have one clue about the amazing rate of progress we'll be facing in upcoming decades. It may be obvious by now that I'm not a conservative.

Regardless, I don't know you from Adam. But a claim of a 70 mpg ceiling for eternity is not a good reflection on one's technological vision.

So your metric is whether we've replaced US oil consumption with solar, but your confidence comes from looking at "global" trajectories? Hmmmm... In any case, that would mean that my metric would change to be that the total output from US solar plants would need to be the same 36% of all US energy consumption AND that total energy consumption has not dropped by more than 15% per capita. Unfortunately for you, you just RAISED the bar, not lowered it, because I had only been considering electricity use before. 36% of all consumption > 50% of electricity consumption. So I'm even MORE confident that your target will not be achieved.

It appears some familiar with the subject disagree with you.

Dept of Energy: U.S. Could Easily Incorporate 80 Percent Renewables in 2050

Tue, June 19, 2012

A study published by the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) found that renewable energy sources could "adequately supply" as much as 80 percent of electricity demand in 2050, using only the technologies that are commercially available today. Such technologies, NREL says in the Renewable Electricity Futures study, could provide balance between supply and demand for electricity on an hourly level.

Three of the conclusions from this passage are:

•Wind and Solar are Big Winners: Wind stands to gain the most in terms of absolute KWh from NRELs scenarios- largely at the expense of coal and natural gas. Solar, however, has the largest percentage increase across the board.

•Nuclear Remains Pretty Stable in All Cases: Nuclear power will remain a relatively consistent proportion of the energy mix under all scenarios; however, it won’t see any new growth in base load power plant construction.

•Ending Reliance on Fossil Fuels is Possible: Even with the shale gas boom in the United States, these models show natural gas could play a smaller role in the total energy mix than some analysts are predicting. Also, technological stability can be maintained across the overall system with declining coal generation.

So where is all this going?

German govt.

 

[joecct]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

80 years or so ago many believed that rockets would not work in space because there was no air to push against.

The Sound Barrier

Scientists and engineers have a way of disproving maxims. Just don't let the government get involved.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

Looking back on our lifetime, businesses used typewriters and wrote accounting logs in the 70s. Going forward, most experts believe that innovation will continue to accelerate at rates never seen before...to the point that by 2050 technology will be hardly recognizable. There are many out there who don't have one clue about the amazing rate of progress we'll be facing in upcoming decades. It may be obvious by now that I'm not a conservative.

Regardless, I don't know you from Adam. But a claim of a 70 mpg ceiling for eternity is not a good reflection on one's technological vision.

Fortunately for me, I didn't claim that. You posted as if it were ridiculous that there might be a limit in that range, as if it had already been disproven. It hasn't. Sure, you can get crazy mileages out of specialty vehicles going 15 mph on a test track without ever stopping or going up hills or carrying cargo or passengers - but those are not true replacements for what we today recognize as an automobile. The leap from the test track to the open road is not technological - it's physical, as in laws-of-physics. There's no way to "apply the technology" of the test track to a real-world car and achieve those mileages - there's not really any special technology in those vehicles that allows them to do what they do. They're just operating them completely differently from how real-world vehicles operate, i.e. in a different regime of physics.

Hence my restriction about energy production per capita not dropping by more than 15%. Sure, we could get by on solar if everyone started riding bicycles everywhere, but that wouldn't be because solar "replaced" petroleum - it would be because we just stopped using petroleum without replacing it with anything and accepted the drastic reduction in quality of life.

It appears some familiar with the subject disagree with you.

Um, no, they don't. You didn't bother to provide a link, but a little digging turned it up here. I couldn't get the link to the specific chart to work, but in their 80% renewable scenario, only 12% of electricity generation comes from PV cells and Concentrated Solar Power plants. Hardly a bloody replacement for petroleum, now, is it? (dead parrot reference)

You're not just mixing apples and oranges - you're mixing apples and toothbrushes. If you have technological vision, it's more Salvador Dali and less Thomas Edison.

So where is all this going?

Apparently, to a website from a special interest group whose purpose is to promote the solar market. I'm shocked - shocked - to see that they think the market will increase.

 

[unofan]

80 years or so ago many believed that rockets would not work in space because there was no air to push against.

The Sound Barrier

Scientists and engineers have a way of disproving maxims. Just don't let the government get involved.

There's something ironic about you mentioning rockets in space while railing against government involvement, but ****ed if I can find it...

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

Fortunately for me, I didn't claim that. You posted as if it were ridiculous that there might be a limit in that range, as if it had already been disproven. It hasn't. Sure, you can get crazy mileages out of specialty vehicles going 15 mph on a test track without ever stopping or going up hills or carrying cargo or passengers - but those are not true replacements for what we today recognize as an automobile. The leap from the test track to the open road is not technological - it's physical, as in laws-of-physics. There's no way to "apply the technology" of the test track to a real-world car and achieve those mileages - there's not really any special technology in those vehicles that allows them to do what they do. They're just operating them completely differently from how real-world vehicles operate, i.e. in a different regime of physics.

Not a bad start for 70 mpg being impossible.

2013 Scion iQ EV

Combined 121

City 138/Highway 105

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/topten.jsp

Um, no, they don't. You didn't bother to provide a link, but a little digging turned it up here. I couldn't get the link to the specific chart to work, but in their 80% renewable scenario, only 12% of electricity generation comes from PV cells and Concentrated Solar Power plants. Hardly a bloody replacement for petroleum, now, is it? (dead parrot reference)

You're not just mixing apples and oranges - you're mixing apples and toothbrushes. If you have technological vision, it's more Salvador Dali and less Thomas Edison.

Apparently, to a website from a special interest group whose purpose is to promote the solar market. I'm shocked - shocked - to see that they think the market will increase.

We're looking at different reports...mine is not from a special interest group...its from the US govt. The other is from the German govt. PV and CSP puts it at 25% by 2050. Others think we can hit 15% by 2020. Youre way off the reservation on this one. Feel free to put up some alternative sources to refute them...and let's see if those are special interests.

It really looks like we have nothing to talk about on this as we have polar opposite views on what technology and innovation will look like by 2050.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

There's a few more issues you still can't seem to wrap your head around. One, people aren't going to wait 16 hours for their car to charge, especially if they happen to be driving a long distance (see the example I gave earlier about Minnesota playing North Dakota, or perhaps playing at Princeton/Quinnipiac, insert any NY duo you wish). Two, with solar anything, you've cut your energy production potential by half regardless of where you are in the world just from a standpoint that the sun only appears to a specific point on Earth an average of half a day. Third, where do you think these governments are getting their "research" from, and given "they" are attempting to predict the future, what sort of assumptions are being made?

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

Not a bad start for 70 mpg being impossible.

2013 Scion iQ EV

Combined 121

Again with the apples and toothbrushes. 121 MPGe != 70 MPG. 121 MPGe is only possible today because there are so few electric vehicle users that they are operating in the fringes of our electrical power generation and distribution infrastructure. If we tried to convert our entire fleet over to plug-in electric, the additional energy costs in infrastructure and manufacturing the vehicles (appropriately not considered in an MPGe calculation) would come into play and the system as a whole would lose efficiency.

We're looking at different reports...mine is not from a special interest group...its from the US govt.

I wasn't talking about that one. The one from the US government shows a scenario where 12% of electricity generation might be solar by 2050 - but it also includes other scenarios. The message from that graph is that IF we're going to get to 80% renewables by 2050, then that is how they think the sources might break down. There's certainly nothing in the report to indicate that they think this is what WILL happen.

The other is from the German govt.

But you showed that one with absolutely no context and no explanation, as promoted by a special interest group's website. Maybe that's a chart showing how much solar power the German government thinks we could use if the sun suddenly got 50% brighter? Maybe it's a chart of what they think solar will look like if they continue to subsidize it at a particularly high level?

It really looks like we have nothing to talk about on this as we have polar opposite views on what technology and innovation will look like by 2050.

I would think we'd have less to discuss if we DID agree on what technology will look like.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

Again with the apples and toothbrushes. 121 MPGe != 70 MPG. 121 MPGe is only possible today because there are so few electric vehicle users that they are operating in the fringes of our electrical power generation and distribution infrastructure. If we tried to convert our entire fleet over to plug-in electric, the additional energy costs in infrastructure and manufacturing the vehicles (appropriately not considered in an MPGe calculation) would come into play and the system as a whole would lose efficiency.

I wasn't talking about that one. The one from the US government shows a scenario where 12% of electricity generation might be solar by 2050 - but it also includes other scenarios. The message from that graph is that IF we're going to get to 80% renewables by 2050, then that is how they think the sources might break down. There's certainly nothing in the report to indicate that they think this is what WILL happen.

But you showed that one with absolutely no context and no explanation, as promoted by a special interest group's website. Maybe that's a chart showing how much solar power the German government thinks we could use if the sun suddenly got 50% brighter? Maybe it's a chart of what they think solar will look like if they continue to subsidize it at a particularly high level?

I would think we'd have less to discuss if we DID agree on what technology will look like.

At the end of the day, I claimed that it was physically possible for cars to do better than 70 mpg. I showed cars doing 120 mpg. I claimed that solar would be a big deal in our lifetime. I have shown multiple reports not by special interests saying that it will be a big deal inour lifetime. You have argued against everything at best hiding behind individual numbers and defintions...and at worst, arguing against the viability of a 70 mpg car ever...when 120 mpg cars are on the market today.

It appears that this is strictly one way...with you bringing no facts to the table yourself. Not the stuff worthy of continuing.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

At the end of the day, I claimed that it was physically possible for cars to do better than 70 mpg. I showed cars doing 120 mpg. I claimed that solar would be a big deal in our lifetime. I have shown multiple reports not by special interests saying that it will be a big deal inour lifetime. You have argued against everything at best hiding behind individual numbers and defintions...and at worst, arguing against the viability of a 70 mpg car ever...when 120 mpg cars are on the market today.

It appears that this is strictly one way...with you bringing no facts to the table yourself. Not the stuff worthy of continuing.

How about one big fact: You can only use solar for half a day. Goodbye "night life", which is a primary tourist attraction for many cities.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

You have argued against everything at best hiding behind individual numbers and defintions...and at worst, arguing against the viability of a 70 mpg car ever...when 120 mpg cars are on the market today.

120MPG cars do not exist. 120MPGe cars exist. That "e" holds a great distinction and tells you that the car are rating is not based upon a combustion engine platform. It's an electric motor for which the government assigned an equivalent value, but that equivalency formula might/will change based upon electric grid load factors Lynah Fan already mentioned.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

It's an electric motor for which the government assigned an equivalent value, but that equivalency formula might/will change based upon electric grid load factors Lynah Fan already mentioned.

...which 'might/will' change based on the grid moving to wind, solar. It all moves to zero.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

At the end of the day, I claimed that it was physically possible for cars to do better than 70 mpg. I showed cars doing 120 mpg. I claimed that solar would be a big deal in our lifetime. I have shown multiple reports not by special interests saying that it will be a big deal inour lifetime. You have argued against everything at best hiding behind individual numbers and defintions...and at worst, arguing against the viability of a 70 mpg car ever...when 120 mpg cars are on the market today.

When people don't work with precise definitions and numerical calculations, I'm always suspicious that they are trying to pull a fast one with smoke and mirrors, and that appears to be the case here since you refuse to acknowledge the difference between MPG and MPGe.

It appears that this is strictly one way...with you bringing no facts to the table yourself. Not the stuff worthy of continuing.

The only fact you need to know about solar is that the best flat-plate solar insolation in the US is 7 KWh/m2/day. You can build your own map here. It does not matter how efficient your collection technology is, nor how inexpensive that technology becomes to produce initially. We will still not be able to physically cover and maintain enough surface area for solar to provide a significant fraction of our energy needs.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

...which 'might/will' change based on the grid moving to wind, solar. It all moves to zero.

And what do you suggest for overnight in areas where there typically isn't much of a breeze?