"At some time in the future most are homes will be self sustaining."
To my thinking, that is a laudable objective. But it is a LONG TERM objective.
In places it is already feasible. But for most of the country, and indeed most of the world, it is not. It will require technology that does not currently exist.
Self sustaining SHOULD, to my thinking, be a governing concept in places such as sub-Saharan Africa where there is no existing infrastructure and where distributed renewable is feasible. Build new, not old.
"I have noticed every time I post some governing bodies projection of renewable energy you say it won't be met."
No disrespect intended, but the stuff you post is not, or often is not, from governing bodies. It's from "green" organizations that are as biased in their outlook as organizations run by coal producers. One has to "sanity check" the "information" provided by ALL of these folks.
In many cases the RPS goals have been demanded by politically active green advocates who naively seem to think that all that is necessary to convert to rewnewable is to establish a statutory goal and the deal is done. They seem to think that the technology to meet the goal will magically appear simply because they WANT it to and that there must be some nefarious entity at work if it goal is not met.
Once one gets past the "flag waving" greens and actually LOOKS at what's been taking place, the evidence that the RPSs will NOT be met is all around. What's more, pull the public money that is being used to subsidies these things and projects stop. And that is true here, in Germany, and elsewhere.
The REALITY is that, with current technology, many of the RPSs cannot be met. It is not just cost, which will be FAR beyond expectations. It is technically infeasible. The situation faced by NY may be a case in point.
"I see where Musk said his gigafactory will supply battery power to solar homes."
Well, as a battery mfgr, he WOULD say that, wouldn't he?
Lake getting good information on NY's progress towards their 30% RPS is difficult. As of last year, NY was less than 50% of the way to meeting its RPS goal (from where it was then at in terms of renewable objective when the goal was established).
Originally the RPS mandated 25% by 2013. When it was clear in 2011 that this would NOT be met, the goal was changed to 30% by 2015. With the gross failure to meet that revised goal, in SPITE of significant changes to PV programs to make them more "flexible", it appears that NY may be abandoning RPS in its entirety in favor of a new, even more complicated Clean Energy Fund. There is some chatter of a goal of 40% rewnewable by 2030. This would supposedly be possible with the use of extensive off-shore wind farms.
It's not that NY has done badly. Per the NY ISO they are already 20% renewable - 15% hydro, 4% wind, 1% other [including solar]. But getting sufficient renewable additions (the hydro has been in place for years) to meet the RPS has proved almost impossible. So they previously resorted to rejiggerring the dates and percentages. Now it appears that they may be abandoning a specific RPS altogether.
What IS clear, is that they don't have a glacier's change in global warming of meeting the 30% by 2015.
NY fuel source (per NYISO):
Gas & gas/oil mix: 54%
Oth Ren 1%
Oil and Scotch might be the foundation of Scotland's economy, or at least it's exports.
Oil, at least, in priced in dollars. Even if the Scots #$%$ their economy the price of oil won't be significantly affected.
The price of Scotch, however, might be a very different story. You might need to double your budget.
Yes, there is some risk for a 90%+ dilution. but that presumes JF is planning to raise about $800m from the share sale. He has no need to do so.
This is just a SWAG, of course, but I'm guessing there will be a sale that will, or would have, maxed out the existing allowable number of shares.
FRO would need to increase the allowable share count. Rather than increase the limit to 500m or 750m, why not just go to 1,000m? It doesn't cost any more for the filing. And they wouldn't need to do it gain any time soon.
What this DOES suggest is that JF is not planning for a BK filing.
Assuming there is a market for them, JF could sell sufficnet shares at a discount to current PPS to raise the $$$$ needed to pay off the bond with a dilution of 70% to the current shares.
My beer bet is that the arrangement will involve a sale of some new shares, a disposal of the FRO2012 holding, etc. And probably some further renegotiation of the lease contracts with SFL (if FRO goes under, SFL will have to place the boats with at current market with some other manager; might as well be with FRO).
Regardless, a dilution of at least 50% seems likely. The question is whether or not that dilution is fully priced in...
"It is in the best interests of US citizens for US crude, oil that we own, to be priced lower than international markets."
The same could be said for everything we consume. Why limit the "government imposed price controls" to just petroleum? Why not ban exports of **everything**, including food, so as to force a reduction in domestic prices?
It worked for Argentina. It should work for the United States.
"You are silly enough to claim that environmentalists are against dams because they produce power"
I made no claim that enviros oppose dams because they "produce power". Enviros oppose BIG HYDRO projects because they damage ecosystems. Enviros are often SUPPORTIVE of run-of-river, small-scale hydro.
"Who cares what you think "big-hydro" is or is not renewable energy."
Big hydro is EXCLUDED (in CT and elsewhere, though not everywhere) from consideration as a "renewable" as a matter of LAW. It is written into the state statutes. It may not be used to meet the RPS.
" I think most real environmentalist unlike you would agree that rather they like dams or not that hydro elect power is clean and renewable."
Think so? Google Sierra Club and large scale hydro.
I'm active in a conservation organization. Those who are most vocal on these matters are *rabidly* opposed to big hydro. Part of my organizational time is spent trying to convince the "purists" that there are times when "least worst" must guide our policy decisions. They grudgingly concede "clean", but not "green" and definitely not "renewable".
"The reality of life is that no one knows what the makeup of China power will be in 16 years down the road."
With certainty, no. But one can, and governing organizations must, make reasonable forecasts and plan appropriately.
"Their needs will increase IF the world's eco remains strong."
Their needs will increase even if it doesn't. They have millions moving into a middle class, higher energy consuming, life-style.
"Coal use will also fit but China will end up using whatever is cheaper"
It's not JUST about economics, even for China. Solar and wind are much more expensive than fossil. Yet China has installed significant amounts of both.
"coal additions outnumber solar additions by a factor of 27"
Oops. That should read:
"fossil additions outnumber solar additions by a factor of 27"
as China is adding some nat gas generating plants.
As an aside, it's worth noting that, while China HAS been adding significant amounts of renewable generating **capacity**, not all of that capacity is usable due to inadequate transmission infrastructure. In the case of some wind farms, as much as 50% of the generated power has to be "dumped" because the "grid" cannot handle the variable load. Yes, they'll eventually get around to dealing with the problem. But, like so many things in China, one cannot just look at the "advertised" number.
"Solar is growing faster in China than anywhere else in the world"
That may be true. But China is adding NON-renewable generating sources at a faster rate than it is adding renewable sources. Which means that the renewable percentage of total capacity is DECREASING. This is particularly evident in the case of solar where coal additions outnumber solar additions by a factor of 27.
"I count hydroelectric as a renewable."
Run-of-river hydro is counted as a renewable. But big-hydro is not. At least not by environmentalists. That is WHY they opposed Hydro-Quebec's Romaine project. That is WHY they want the dams on the Columbia river removed. That is WHY big-hydro does not "count" toward meeting the renewable portfolio standard in CT, NH and elsewhere.
"Nuke power has a lot of problems"
Challenges? Absolutely. Problems? Not necessarily. Just ask France.
"1/3 of their power will be from renewables,"
Wrong conclusion. 1/3 of their power will be from something OTHER than fossil. That does not of necessity mean renewables.
They're building a whole fleet of nukes.
And big hydro, which currently provides the lion's share of China's non-fossil generation, is not considered a "renewable" by most greens due to the enviro damage cause by siting and construction.
Well at least you're consistent, Lake. You miss the point in messages on multiple message boards.
For low grade Aussie and S. African coal, true.
But China itself brought 100 million tons of new coal production online in 2013 with several hundred million additional tons to be brought online through the end of 2015.. They need the coal to fuel the hundreds of new coal fired power plants that are coming on line during that time period..
In 2013 china's fossil power generation additions, most of it coal, were 6x newly added wind generation and 27x newly added solar generation. China's use of fossil / coal is expanding FASTER than it's use of renewables.
The bottom line is that in 2030 two thirds of china's power generation will be fossil powered, mostly coal.
See the trend?
And now there's this: natureworldnewsDOTcom/articles/9055/20140916/prostate-cancer-risk-betrayed-balding-pattern.htm
Eh. Their chart of demand use doesn't "square" with most others I've seen. Take a look at this one from the CA ISO: caisoDOTcom/Pages/TodaysOutlook.aspx
There is a significantly higher demand for power 9 till 9, apx with the peak occurring in early/mid afternoon. Solar is at it's highest capacity from 9 till 5ish. So... it - solar -is a good match for peak power usage.
The article's comment about "dispatching" renewables begs a question about why, since the fuel is free, these facilities would EVER be "idling" and need to be dispatched when they could be generating electricity.
So the holocaust was "phony" because the #$%$-s engaged in destruction of evidence.
That makes sense.
Remember, too, that CA does not determine which power plants to dispatch at which times and in what quantity. That is a decision that is made by the ISOs - the independent system operators. The decisions are regional, not state specific.
Not to mention that significant conversion to NG for electricity, which is also a significant contributor to home heating, puts a lot reliance on that one fuel source.
We're 7 or so years into the major fracking effort and depletion rates are running higher than anticipated. Not to mention the enviro issues associated with fracking. So... will NG be as available and as inexpensive 10 or 20 years from now as is currently the case?
That's a risk that nuke, renewables, and coal all mitigate. A "portfolio" of fuel sources can be a good thing.
Hi Mr. Shores,
Thought I'd responded. Don't see the message. Anyway....
Yes, solar is a "fit" for peak need. And it's not just CA where that is the case. The PVs are cranking when the a/c is running.
CA attempted to "game" the wholesale power markets during their fumbled dereg and it is the case that they ended up paying through the nose for spot purchases. You're assuming that is still the case?
Don't know about CA, but coal and nuke are the two fuel sources that are LEAST appropriate for peaking use. CA is mostly "homegrown" power. It's imports in the north are primarily renewable while in the south, where the imports are larger, the primary import is coal. I'd bet a beer that the coal import is base load, not peaking. It would be under long term contract and not subject to spot pricing.
That would suggest that the peaking plants are most likely in-state. Which would mitigate the advantages you articulated since CA would, like all other states grappling with RPS essentially paying twice for its electricity; once for the renewable generation and again to have peaking power on reserve.
But it's hard to tell from the available information.
The trend, Lake, is that increased the percentage of renewables in the generation mix means increased per kwh cost. You cannot add an Ivanpah at 21 cents kwh into a system that currently utilizes 5 to 6 cents gas generation and expect costs to go DOWN. Just as the NE ISO cannot increase the % of power from renewables by adding Capewind off Martha's Vineyard at a subsidized rate of 21 cents a kwh (almost 4x the cost of power from fossil) and expect electricity costs to DECREASE.
Germany is a prime example. Significant increases in renewable generation mean substantial increases in the price of power. THAT is the trend.