Feel the Burn.
A solar plant in California, which was recently found to be producing far less electricity than predicted, and is cooking 10 birds a day, just immolated itself. From Gizmodo (h/t: Drudge):
Misaligned mirrors are being blamed for a fire that broke out yesterday at the world’s largest solar power plant, leaving the high-tech facility crippled for the time being… It’s now running at a third of its capacity (a second tower is down due to scheduled maintenance), and it’s not immediately clear when the damaged tower will restart. It’s also unclear how the incident will impact California’s electricity supply. (full story)
It should also be noted that this plant was the recipient of 1.6 billion taxpayer dollars, and was expected to usher in a new era of Green technology.
At least it created a few green jobs. Well, if you’re a fireman.
solar sucks. let’s go back to whale oil.
Unicorn pellets. That’s the future.
you’d have to feed a lot of fiber to those unicorns to get that many pellets. “whale oil and coal-a future you already know.”
Burning Coal and Oil creates CO2 and deadly Dihydrogen Oxide. But when you burn Unicorn Pellets, all it leaves behind are Rainbows.
Now let’s compare and contrast the economic and environmental impact of this solar power accident to, idk, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
Oh, why do you want to go and bring up reality?
I know. It’s a real problem I have.
Better yet, let’s compare the amount of energy produced by Deepwater Horizon vs the couple thousand homes that got a little electricity from this ridiculous thing for a year or two.
Better still, let’s compare the amount of tax subsidies BP has gotten to what this plant in its early stages of development and operation has.
This isn’t a game you want to play.
“Tax subsidies” are nothing more than a left wing talking point. You’d be hard pressed to demonstrate that Deepwater Horizon got anywhere near $1.6 billion.
Yeah, I really can. In just the cleanup effort alone.
See, when a solar plant breaks, all you lose is some kilowatt-hours of energy production and a handful of easily replaced mechanical components. The sun doesn’t suddenly flood the area with extra light and set everything on fire.
When an oil well breaks, you lose not only the oil and mechanical components, but many multiples that value in clean up costs and lost productivity in downstream industries affected by the environmental degradation that results, like the shrimp and fishing industries in the Gulf region for one example.
There’s no contest anymore. Solar is cheaper, not just in costs per kilowatt-hour of electricity production in many places, but in costs to the larger economy when things go wrong.
mr slagle, do you really want to say the oil industry has not gotten huge tax breaks? talking point? or fact?
Clean up costs of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill so far: $54 Billion.
BP’s responsibility under their settlement with the government: $18.7 billion.
That’s a cost passed on to U.S. taxpayers and affected businesses of $35.3 billion. For just this one accident. That’s just a touch more than the $1.6 billion you’re on about.
Will the repairs at the Cali solar plant cost $33.7 billion?
Somehow, I doubt it.
Uh.. those cleanup costs were paid entirely by BP, not the taxpayers:
“The settlement would add at least $10 billion to the roughly $44 billion BP has already incurred in legal and cleanup costs, pushing its tab for the spill higher than all the profits it has earned since 2012.”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/bp-agrees-to-pay-18-7-billion-to-settle-deepwater-horizon-oil-spill-claims-1435842739
Fair enough.
But you think this in any way strengthens your argument against solar energy?
Really?
No, it weakens your argument in favor of solar subsidies.
I might add, that the Ivanpah Solar plant, under normal operation, was killing around ten birds every single day. Just to power a few thousand homes. Not really a good choice, environmentally.
Oh noes! Ten whole birds!
How much wildlife was killed by the Deepwater Horizon spill?
Don’t bother answering that.
Deepwater Horizon was an accident. Ivanpah was killing the birds during their normal operation. 100k expected over it’s projected lifespan. And again, to power a couple thousand homes. The oil industry powers hundreds of millions of cars.
You can’t make this up
You can’t make up the fact developing technologies encounter unexpected breakdowns and set backs during their maturation cycle?
Really, you couldn’t make that up?
Because that’s the most reliably predictable thing in tech.
The problem here is your imagination.
… And sometimes these utopian ideas just never work.
Yeah, ask Germany how bad green energy has been for them. Oh, right, they just made so much solar and wind energy that they had to pay customers to use it.
Not a joke. That really happened.
Here’s how good it is:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/08/germany-to-abandon-1-1-trillion-wind-power-program-by-2019/
Germany is moving away from wind in favor of solar.
Nice try.
Research much?
http://phys.org/news/2013-07-germany-solar-subsidies.html
Actually, they’re moving away from wind AND solar in favor of Nuclear. It’s the REAL future.
Because it doesn’t need to continue subsidies. Solar has become competative with legacy generation methods on its own and no longer needs them.
Research much?
link?
When “oversupply” is a problem, subsidies aren’t really necessary anymore.
The problem with green isn’t that it doesn’t make enough, it’s that it has the potential to make so much that the surplus can drive prices down too much and crash energy markets under current demand.
It was in your own link.
When you have to pay your customers to use your product, even for brief periods, that’s a real problem for a business.
We’re on the cusp of an age of abundance instead of scarcity. New economic models will be needed to cope with it.
“it has the potential to make so much”
Utter nonsense. “Green” energy can’t even make enough power, to build green energy. Absent coal, there wouldn’t be enough energy to melt silicon to create solar cells, or steel to build wind turbines.
” It was in your own link.”
Seriously? Here’s what I read: “Berlin “has so far invested 216 billion euros ($278 billion) in renewables and the biggest chunk went to solar, the technology which does least to ensure the power supply,”
Which is always true during a transitional period. Without whale oil, there wouldn’t have been enough energy to build the first steam engines. Without steam engines, there wouldn’t have been enough energy to develop the first oil fields.
And without coal, there wouldn’t have been enough energy to develop its replacement either.
That’s how technology works.
Yes, seriously. Read the part that says “oversupply.”
Nonsense. The first industrial steam engine was coal fired. (and is was used to pump out coal mines, which were already there.)
Ensuring the power supply is an issue for solar, but one that will soon disappear when new energy storage systems go online and even out the peaks and valleys inherent in the method.
Way to miss the point in its entirity.
The guy who invented the Segway referred to it as the “future of transportation”. When predicting the future, the odds are most people will get it completely wrong.
I didn’t say the first steam engine was powered by whale oil, (although it most certainly was lubricated by whale oil and other animal based lubricants.)
Whatever. I know that technology always moves forward. Wind and Solar are backwards.
Coal powered the adoption of oil. Oil powered the adoption of nuclear power. Both are powering the adoption of solar, wind, and other green sources.
That’s how this works.
For real, how is this confusing you?
How are free energy, zero-emission sources backwards?
For real? How?
Again. wind goes back to the 16th century. Solar has been around since the 19th century.
Oil was more efficient than coal, nuclear was more efficient than oil. That’s how things move forward. Wind and Solar are more efficient than none of these.
In very primative forms that were not remotely close to the efficiencies we are achieving now, or are expected to in the very near future.
And even with all the billions invested, they still can’t compete with oil, coal, gas or nuclear power. And it’s likely they never will.
The price of solar keeps dropping. It will continue to. Soon, it won’t even be an environmental argument to be made, but a purely economic one. In certain locations, that line has already been crossed.
Ah, nonsense. They already are.
They’re simply not.
The failure of Ivanpah is just more evidence.
They simply are. It’s already happened. Solar farms being build with today’s efficiencies are already putting in bids per kilowatt-hour that are below what traditional coal or gas fired plants can achieve in some markets.
This is not a projection. This is old news.
And Ivanpah has not failed, it hit a glitch during development. It will be repaired at a relatively small cost, and put back into service.
What you’re seeing now is the upfront costs of development and building a new infrastructure. And yes, they are high.
They always are. The upfront costs of electrifying rural areas was high. The upfront costs of the Interstate system were high.
But once in place, our economy grew to a point that we couldn’t imagine functioning without them.
You’re trying to compare an industry that is more than a century old to one that’s only now going through its initial growing pains, and completely ignoring how inappropriate the comparison is.
Utter nonsense. There was no “transitional period” when we went from coal to oil. There were no massive government subsidies, to help it along. It just happened organically.
When better technologies are created, they are adopted. “Transitional periods”, are something the Soviets invented, as an excuse for their failures; a promise of a better future just around the corner, a corner that is never reached.
And Ivanpah has failed. Read the article, and follow the links. It will probably be dismantled, since they’re bankrupt, and never met original projections.
Ok Tim. Whatever you need to tell yourself. Ignore the writing on the wall.
And ignore too the fact that, with the exception of nuclear, all of our power generation is solar based.
Coal. Petroleum. Natural gas.
It’s all solar energy captured by plants.
We know their tricks now, and are rapidly improving on the method. It’s only a question of political will. Not scientific, technological, or engineering capability.
Political? Seriously? Could King Knut control the tides?
Yes. Political. If we could build the world’s largest network of roadways, we can build a green energy infrastructure to go along with it.
No need for anyone to control the Sun. It’s going to be there reliably for another five billion years.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can’t we make a car that runs on unicorn pellets? We just need the political will…
Because unicorns aren’t real, Tim. The Sun, otoh, is.
Competitively efficient solar panels aren’t real either.
I know you really want to believe that. But reality doesn’t care.
Incidentally, this wasn’t a solar panel plant. It was a solar collection plant, and only one third of it was taken offline by the mirror misalignment.
“do you really want to say the oil industry has not gotten huge tax breaks? ”
The oil industry deducts ordinary business losses, lowering their tax bill. The Left (who needs to perpetuate lies to support their agenda) refers to those deductions as “tax subsidies”. So I say “No”, Tim. They haven’t gotten “huge tax breaks”.
Well, according to USNews “… the oil gas industry, which get a special deal better than other corporate taxpayers because of a list of tax benefits, many unique to their industry.” when an oil company defers their tax payment to almost nothing the result is an interest free loan unique to their industry. I am all for using incentives to grow the economy and create jobs but… do we really need to help companies that are hugely successful? In the end I guess your point depends on the definition of “huge.” A total relief of a companies tax bill for the year must not be “huge” to you.
“a list of tax benefits, many unique to their industry.”
Where is that list?
“Where is that list?” The Liberal Talking Points Daily is where I found mine. but you might want to use the internet.
Actually Tim, the quote you pulled was from an editorial by Ryan Alexander of Taxpayers for Common Sense. So yeah, without the list you’re just recycling talking points.
hey kids, it’s time to play let’s kill the messenger.
Not at all. I’d just like to see the list.
If the President of the Heartland Institute claimed he had a list of respected climate scientists who dispute Global Warming Theory, would you take his word for it, or want to see the list? And if he refused to provide a list, would you accept his statement as an established fact, or a talking point?
i can see where your confusion comes from, now. you feel talking points are not to be trusted but because we liberals use facts as talking points so “recycling talking points” is the same as reciting the facts. anyway, please feel free to search “history of tax breaks for oil and gas industry.” there is much information out there.
“we liberals use facts as talking points ”
Not exactly. You convince yourselves that talking points are facts.
And every search I’ve ever done, has shown that “tax breaks for oil and gas industry”, are ordinary business deductions. It”s why I asked to see the list.
ordinary in what sense? as in every industry gets the same write offs or ordinary in writing off business expenses? Because if you think all industries have the oil depletion allowance… you may want to do some research.
Oil depletion allowance for other businesses would be called “depreciation”. It’s an ordinary business deduction.
aahhhh… it’s ordinary, thus all the controversy over it. “the fact that one of the two methods of claiming the allowance makes it possible to write off more than the whole capital cost of the asset.”
The controversy exists, because the Left hates the oil industry, and they attack it incessantly. Given their druthers, they’d nationalize it.
hmmm… no. but nice try. the controversy exists because a very rich industry has tax advantages others don’t.
Actually, no. The depletion allowance is given to anyone with a mining or timber interest.
It’s only a scandalous tax advantage for the Oil Corporations, because the Left wants them nationalized.
mmm… no. you are now flailing. this is a decades old debate-should we give tax incentives to industries that don’t need them? to make the rich into super rich? that is why this particular tax break has been debated for decades. so, you couldn’t be more wrong. nationalization of oil? you must be going to different liberal meetings than me.
Not flailing at all. Here it is from the horses mouth: Depletion can be taken from any Mineral or Timber resource. It’s not a special tax break, just an ordinary deduction:
https://www.irs.gov/publications/p535/ch09.html
read, learn… http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/26/news/economy/oil_tax_breaks_obama/
$4 Billion? For the entire industry? That’s it? On a thread abut a single solar plant that cost the taxpayers $1.6 billion?
Regardless, of the four “subsidies” listed, only one was unique to the oil industry. Domestic Manufacturing, Percentage Depletion, & Foreign Tax Credit are all normal deductions that other businesses routinely take.
Only Intangible Drilling Costs are unique to the industry. Not as a deduction, but as an accelerated deduction. It costs the taxpayers a whopping $780 million a year, about the cost of Solyndra.
apparently you still are not understanding what oil gets to take a deduction on… their product while it is still in the ground and the net result is a tax benefit unavailable to other industries. that’s what makes it not normal and the decades worth of debate. oh, and one of the reasons why exxon mobil had the most successful quarterly profits in the history of the world. but they still need the write offs, of course.
“their product while it is still in the ground and the net result is a tax benefit unavailable to other industries.”
If you’re talking about the Depletion Deduction, it’s available to everybody in the Mineral and Timber industries.
“available to everybody in the Mineral and Timber industries.” that’s your defense? seriously? please direct your attention to the question- should we give tax breaks to the most successful corporations in world history. That we do it for borax and pine is not a reason you would continue the practice. you understand that, right?
I’m just pointing out, that contrary to your allegation, the tax benefit IS available to other industries.
And that these things the Left likes to call “Subsidies for Big Oil” are actually normal business deductions.
Myself, I’d like to see the corporate tax eliminated entirely. For all industries. It would create an economic boom the likes of which, this nation has never seen before.
” please direct your attention to the question- should we give tax breaks to the most successful corporations in world history. ” I just knew you couldn’t do it.
I don’t think we should pick and choose which corporations get breaks. I’m in favor of a flat tax, but that’s really hard with a business because all the various business models that exist, and the various ways that you can hide profits.
Hence, I think we should just suspend the Corporate tax entirely.
all or nothing? don’t start winding it down with the richest corps first?
It’s not the job of Government to equalize, Mr. Bergeron.
well, it has been since the 1930’s, after which came our greatest economic strength, but if you don’t like that kind of thing you just don’t.
Our greatest economic strength, came after FDR died, and took his nonsense to the grave with him.
poor FDR. people like you won’t give him credit because the boom didn’t happen while he was still alive. so that means nothing he did had anything to do with what happened later, of course. your ability to see cause and effect is really only a here and now thing isn’t it?
“the boom didn’t happen while he was still alive”
Uh, yeah… funny how that happened.
Recessions traditionally last one or two years. But a really talented President can make one last a decade or more. We have one of those savants in the office currently.
again, true cause and effect is not a concept you grasp. or, how things work.
My thoughts exactly.
you might be dealing with bad information… (again) Try this http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/your-money/stocks-and-bonds/26stra.html?_r=0
Actual economists disagree with you:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123353276749137485
That’s not even a quarter of the story, and you know it.
The oil industry is on the same death spiral as the coal and whaling industries before it.
Solar, wind, tidal, and other non-polluting generation methods are dominating the future, and on a level economic playing field.
Get with it.
“Solar, wind, tidal, and other non-polluting generation methods are dominating the future,”
No, they’re not. Wind is the past. (16th century) Solar is still way too expensive to be feasible, and tidal is just a ridiculous toy. The “future” is likely fusion. But we’re nowhere near that yet.
It’s just OPM, other peoples money. What does Congress care if they are spending our money.
From someone who’s thesis was alternative energy, which includes nuclear btw.
The problem with wind, solar, tidal has always been two fold. The energy they produce is not available 24/7, 365 or “on demand” and cannot be increased in case of unusually high demand. Second, the energy cannot be stored. It’s, use it or lose it.
Thus far, and we have been trying for decades to solve this problem, those two most basic needs to continue our current quality of life cannot be delivered. Until that happens, “domination” is nothing more than a fantasy.
It’s just a transitional period… in the future we’ll be able to control the sun and wind, so the power is available on demand.
(Either that, or we’ll follow the Venezuelan model, and only allow people to use electricity a couple hours a day.)
Tim Slagle that would work…