Investing in Renewable Energy....
Today’s post: Wednesday, 9-24-2008
According to today’s news, there is now a much better chance that the renewable energy tax credits will be extended. The Senate passed a bill that does this which includes an 8 year extension for solar.
And, if the House also passes a companion bill, it looks as if the President will sign it. Since the Senate and the possibility of a Presidential veto were the main roadblocks until now, this looks good.
This has two investment implications.
A. Solar stocks have already gone up on this news. And, because this is a new industry with great promise, some renewable energy and solar stocks may be overvalued. In addition, some renewable companies that look promising now may lose out to better technology or stronger competitors a few years from now.
However, there are two reasons you might want to invest in these stocks now.
In my opinion, the market does not yet fully value the huge expansion in demand and sales that these companies collectively are likely to experience as the world transitions to an economy based on renewable energy.
Second, all stocks are still selling for less than they may well sell for once the financial markets stabilize.
So this is quite possibly a good time to invest in these stocks.
Given the risks, do NOT bet the rent money. But if you are younger or are rich enough to have investment money that’s safe to put into higher risk, higher reward stocks that might multiply in value, this could be a good time to invest.
1. Here’s a website that has four renewable energy ideas and companies. The company I know, Nanosolar, is not now a public company. And, the other three may also still be private. But the technologies look interesting. And the companies may be good investments if they ever go public.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/environment/2008-09-08-energy-innovations-environment_N.htm/
Nanosolar is the thin film solar company. They also include a company that is gearing up to make ethanol from algae; a company with a biofuel substitute for coal in facilities that now burn coal; & and a more cost effective way to store wind energy for release when the wind is NOT blowing.
2. TheStreet.com has a whole suite of articles on solar and renewable energy and on solar and renewable energy companies that have stock that you CAN buy. It also has information on two ETF’s that enable you to make a bet on the industry without betting all your money on one or two companies.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/10431707/1/solar-energy-what-you-need-to-know.html?puc=_tscrss
My take on it is that if, as now looks likely, the renewable energy tax credits ARE extended; & the financial markets do stabilize as Warren Buffett is betting with his large investment in Goldman Sachs, solar and renewable energy stocks will go mostly higher from here.
B. In other news, it looks increasingly likely that cap & trade systems to cut CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels will be tried more and more.
This may mean sharp increases in the price of power from utilities now generating electricity from burning fossil fuels once these systems become widespread.
So, to protect yourself from being totally dependent on the utilities that still mostly burn fossil fuels for your electricity, if you possibly can arrange to engineer your home or business for energy efficiency and install solar panels it may pay you double to do so. You’ll get tax credits to help pay for it. And, you’ll wind up saving a lot of money on the electricity you use.
Unlike buying solar and renewable energy stocks, that looks both safe & prudent and likely to give you a reliably positive return.
If you can afford it, why not do some of each?
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
New information on energy....
Today’s post: Wednesday, 9-17-2008
Some information on energy that I read today may be accurate at last in part and if so is likely quite important.
A. A free email newsletter that I subscribe to is mostly for entrepreneurs and people who would like to do online information marketing or simply manage to have more money. And, this newsletter also has good articles on health and on managing or working well in companies.
It’s called Early to Rise. And, you can see today’s issue or subscribe to it yourself if you like at www.earlytorise.com .
As you might imagine, they make their money by selling information products or allowing other information marketers to advertise on their website and newsletter.
The very first item today was an ad:
"What George Bush Was Told Behind Closed Doors…Could Make You Very Rich
Special Report: Make Enormous Gains Before Wall Street Wakes Up to the "Oil Hoax" "
The first sentence sounded so dreadful, I almost skipped reading the rest of the teaser copy. But the next sentence and those that followed caught my eye.
It seems the investment letter writer who is advertising is willing to explain what he sees as some of the more important and little known aspects of the world energy situation that will cause some investments to go up dramatically. Of course, you have to pay him to find out what stocks he’s found that this information suggests may do unusually well.
I found some of what he had to say worth reading. Some of it I think he has right. Some of it will be correct but not for very long. And some of it may not be correct.
That said, I thought it worth bringing some of his comments to your attention.
1. The “oil hoax” he speaks of is NOT that people are being oversold that oil will run out. It’s that oil may be running out much faster than many people have been led to believe it will.
It seems that the Saudis and other members of OPEC have very possibly inflated their real oil reserves that they claim to have to increase the share of the OPEC oil they can pump & deliver. Or, as other members do this, they do it also to avoid having their share shrink. This is the “oil hoax” he speaks of.
In 1979 when ARAMCO left, his article says they said that Saudi Arabia had 110 billion barrels of proven oil reserves. Between then and 17 years later, the Saudis have extracted 46 billion barrels. So, if the 110 reserve figure was accurate, they would have about 64 billion barrels left.
And, he states they have found no new oil fields between then and now. But they claim to now have 260 billion barrels of reserves.
Did they hire someone with better technology to better survey their known reserves and find that much more oil? Did the increase in oil prices allow for more complete extraction, albeit using more expensive methods? Was new extraction technology developed?
If so, maybe they do still have 260 billion barrels of oil left. But because they had an incentive to claim more and did not add any few oilfields, the writer’s point is that they might only have the 64 billion barrels of oil left.
If that’s so & oil consumption per year goes up somewhat, they might only have 20 years of supply left.
This author doesn’t seem to know anything about renewable energy. But some of his other ideas that follow may have some validity.
The first thing that strikes me is that if any of the executives of the major oil companies believe this information might be accurate, it would certainly explain them spending a lot or money to get the politicians willing to do so to support a lot more offshore drilling for oil in the United States.
He makes a lot of other points that he believes follow from this first point.
2. He says that Europeans have developed efficient and clean burning and quiet diesel engines. He says that the remaining particulate pollution from such engines can be eliminated by a new technology that removes them from the exhaust pipe or tailpipe of the engine.
And, he believes that this kind of diesel in a diesel hybrid car may be the winning technology in energy efficient new cars.
He then goes on to say that coal can be used as a feedstock to make diesel fuel in a nonpolluting way.
Those ideas might be partly accurate. If they are, the company or companies that make and sell the new “tailpipe” pollution removers for such diesel engines would indeed do very well as might his clients who bought the stock of the company that developed the technology.
He also suggest that this “clean coal” use of coal will make the prices of coal and the stock of competent coal extracting companies go up if it’s used on as large a scale as he anticipates for these reasons.
3. He also believes that natural gas prices will go up dramatically from here and that natural gas is undervalued now so the percentage gains could be quite large. And the stocks that are pure plays in extracting natural gas, delivering it by pipeline, and those of companies that are LNG, Liquefied Natural Gas, related will all do well.
If this is thought to be accurate by oil company executives, it would also explain their interest in more offshore drilling as some of the prospective new areas in which to drill offshore, according this writer, have huge natural gas deposits.
He also says that such a run up in natural gas prices might well induce parts of the world that now flare off the natural gas that is to them a byproduct of their oil fields to instead build LNG plants and transport that natural gas to market. (That would also eliminate some CO2 release that is now happening on a large scale that has no economic value to even partially justify it.)
4. He also says that South Korea, much of Western Europe, & China are all rapidly developing new nuclear plants to generate electricity. (He doesn’t say so. But I’ve read that India also plans to do this & that Saudi Arabia and other middle-eastern countries may also do so.)
If that is true, and it does look to be true, based on the news I’ve seen, it may be good news for global warming as these plants may replace coal burning plants that would have been built or that now are burning coal.
But it has three other implications. One is that, although the existing nuclear facilities in these countries have not been raided so far as is known, by terrorists interested in making bombs, the potential for that might be growing on a worldwide basis.
And, even if they do not now exist in the United States, the companies that will build the components for these nuclear plants clearly exist or will be built elsewhere.
This suggests that the more nuclear plants may yet be built here.
B. I have several comments.
Since the upside potential of solar photovoltaics and solar thermal power is so huge, and is now cost competitive with coal and natural gas or very soon will be, this information suggest that it is even more important than we believed to start building more solar power generating sources both on individual buildings and as large solar power “farms” – and to begin immediately and continue until we have a huge amount of electricity flowing from solar sources.
If this is done, and many more nuclear electricity generating plants are built also, or the new natural gas source T Boone Pickens says is coming on line does do so, this may greatly soften the demand for natural gas and coal that the author of this piece now predicts. But if he is right in the short run, it will help us boost the use of solar as solar will clearly be cost competitive or even cheaper to build and operate than natural gas or coal burning plants.
However, if oil does begin to run out that soon, and liquefied coal diesel and biodiesel from algae do come online, both those kinds of businesses and the companies that make the diesel engines & pollution removal technology he describes may do well as he suggests.
His information also suggests that it might well pay us, economically & for the safety of our economy to do both the additional oil drilling and new nuclear plants the Republicans want AND the dramatic expansion of renewable energy the Democrats want to happen.
Since the renewable energy has the largest upside, is best for slowing global warming, and is safest to deploy, I still believe that Obama is by far the better choice for President.
But it also looks as if we need to address & use these other technologies this author describes; allow some more drilling for oil and natural gas in the short run & consider building more nuclear plants here.
And, whether we build more nuclear plants in the United States or not, we need to find out what we can do to ensure the safety of those that apparently are being build and will be built in the rest of the world.
Today’s post: Wednesday, 9-17-2008
Some information on energy that I read today may be accurate at last in part and if so is likely quite important.
A. A free email newsletter that I subscribe to is mostly for entrepreneurs and people who would like to do online information marketing or simply manage to have more money. And, this newsletter also has good articles on health and on managing or working well in companies.
It’s called Early to Rise. And, you can see today’s issue or subscribe to it yourself if you like at www.earlytorise.com .
As you might imagine, they make their money by selling information products or allowing other information marketers to advertise on their website and newsletter.
The very first item today was an ad:
"What George Bush Was Told Behind Closed Doors…Could Make You Very Rich
Special Report: Make Enormous Gains Before Wall Street Wakes Up to the "Oil Hoax" "
The first sentence sounded so dreadful, I almost skipped reading the rest of the teaser copy. But the next sentence and those that followed caught my eye.
It seems the investment letter writer who is advertising is willing to explain what he sees as some of the more important and little known aspects of the world energy situation that will cause some investments to go up dramatically. Of course, you have to pay him to find out what stocks he’s found that this information suggests may do unusually well.
I found some of what he had to say worth reading. Some of it I think he has right. Some of it will be correct but not for very long. And some of it may not be correct.
That said, I thought it worth bringing some of his comments to your attention.
1. The “oil hoax” he speaks of is NOT that people are being oversold that oil will run out. It’s that oil may be running out much faster than many people have been led to believe it will.
It seems that the Saudis and other members of OPEC have very possibly inflated their real oil reserves that they claim to have to increase the share of the OPEC oil they can pump & deliver. Or, as other members do this, they do it also to avoid having their share shrink. This is the “oil hoax” he speaks of.
In 1979 when ARAMCO left, his article says they said that Saudi Arabia had 110 billion barrels of proven oil reserves. Between then and 17 years later, the Saudis have extracted 46 billion barrels. So, if the 110 reserve figure was accurate, they would have about 64 billion barrels left.
And, he states they have found no new oil fields between then and now. But they claim to now have 260 billion barrels of reserves.
Did they hire someone with better technology to better survey their known reserves and find that much more oil? Did the increase in oil prices allow for more complete extraction, albeit using more expensive methods? Was new extraction technology developed?
If so, maybe they do still have 260 billion barrels of oil left. But because they had an incentive to claim more and did not add any few oilfields, the writer’s point is that they might only have the 64 billion barrels of oil left.
If that’s so & oil consumption per year goes up somewhat, they might only have 20 years of supply left.
This author doesn’t seem to know anything about renewable energy. But some of his other ideas that follow may have some validity.
The first thing that strikes me is that if any of the executives of the major oil companies believe this information might be accurate, it would certainly explain them spending a lot or money to get the politicians willing to do so to support a lot more offshore drilling for oil in the United States.
He makes a lot of other points that he believes follow from this first point.
2. He says that Europeans have developed efficient and clean burning and quiet diesel engines. He says that the remaining particulate pollution from such engines can be eliminated by a new technology that removes them from the exhaust pipe or tailpipe of the engine.
And, he believes that this kind of diesel in a diesel hybrid car may be the winning technology in energy efficient new cars.
He then goes on to say that coal can be used as a feedstock to make diesel fuel in a nonpolluting way.
Those ideas might be partly accurate. If they are, the company or companies that make and sell the new “tailpipe” pollution removers for such diesel engines would indeed do very well as might his clients who bought the stock of the company that developed the technology.
He also suggest that this “clean coal” use of coal will make the prices of coal and the stock of competent coal extracting companies go up if it’s used on as large a scale as he anticipates for these reasons.
3. He also believes that natural gas prices will go up dramatically from here and that natural gas is undervalued now so the percentage gains could be quite large. And the stocks that are pure plays in extracting natural gas, delivering it by pipeline, and those of companies that are LNG, Liquefied Natural Gas, related will all do well.
If this is thought to be accurate by oil company executives, it would also explain their interest in more offshore drilling as some of the prospective new areas in which to drill offshore, according this writer, have huge natural gas deposits.
He also says that such a run up in natural gas prices might well induce parts of the world that now flare off the natural gas that is to them a byproduct of their oil fields to instead build LNG plants and transport that natural gas to market. (That would also eliminate some CO2 release that is now happening on a large scale that has no economic value to even partially justify it.)
4. He also says that South Korea, much of Western Europe, & China are all rapidly developing new nuclear plants to generate electricity. (He doesn’t say so. But I’ve read that India also plans to do this & that Saudi Arabia and other middle-eastern countries may also do so.)
If that is true, and it does look to be true, based on the news I’ve seen, it may be good news for global warming as these plants may replace coal burning plants that would have been built or that now are burning coal.
But it has three other implications. One is that, although the existing nuclear facilities in these countries have not been raided so far as is known, by terrorists interested in making bombs, the potential for that might be growing on a worldwide basis.
And, even if they do not now exist in the United States, the companies that will build the components for these nuclear plants clearly exist or will be built elsewhere.
This suggests that the more nuclear plants may yet be built here.
B. I have several comments.
Since the upside potential of solar photovoltaics and solar thermal power is so huge, and is now cost competitive with coal and natural gas or very soon will be, this information suggest that it is even more important than we believed to start building more solar power generating sources both on individual buildings and as large solar power “farms” – and to begin immediately and continue until we have a huge amount of electricity flowing from solar sources.
If this is done, and many more nuclear electricity generating plants are built also, or the new natural gas source T Boone Pickens says is coming on line does do so, this may greatly soften the demand for natural gas and coal that the author of this piece now predicts. But if he is right in the short run, it will help us boost the use of solar as solar will clearly be cost competitive or even cheaper to build and operate than natural gas or coal burning plants.
However, if oil does begin to run out that soon, and liquefied coal diesel and biodiesel from algae do come online, both those kinds of businesses and the companies that make the diesel engines & pollution removal technology he describes may do well as he suggests.
His information also suggests that it might well pay us, economically & for the safety of our economy to do both the additional oil drilling and new nuclear plants the Republicans want AND the dramatic expansion of renewable energy the Democrats want to happen.
Since the renewable energy has the largest upside, is best for slowing global warming, and is safest to deploy, I still believe that Obama is by far the better choice for President.
But it also looks as if we need to address & use these other technologies this author describes; allow some more drilling for oil and natural gas in the short run & consider building more nuclear plants here.
And, whether we build more nuclear plants in the United States or not, we need to find out what we can do to ensure the safety of those that apparently are being build and will be built in the rest of the world.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Save & extend the renewable energy tax credits....
Today’s post: Wednesday, 9-10-2008
On the renewable energy tax credits issue.:
Since renewable energy is clearly able to provide very nearly all the energy our economy needs once it is fully developed & both our climate & our economy totally depend on that development beginning right away, THE most important issue is to see to it that those credits are successfully renewed THIS year.
It would be very desirable to have them extended for at least 5 years instead of longer. But whether or not that's done, it's imperative that they be renewed at all THIS YEAR.
Yes, it would be nice to not add more drilling as that has less upside for lowering energy costs, causes some harm to beach areas, & is a bad idea for improving global warming & would actually be somewhat harmful to it.
Yes, since the oil companies see themselves as oil companies instead of energy companies and now have huge cash surpluses, it would be nice to tax them or cancel tax credits they have now to provide more funds for renewable energy.
But as the voters begin to see more progress in renewable energy and more harmful weather events from global warming, their support for drilling will decrease and their support for taxing the oil companies will increase.
Here's my point. If the renewable energy tax credits are not renewed THIS time, it will delay the development of renewable energy just as it is beginning to take off.
Since the credits will NOT be renewed if that's tied to taxing the oil companies because President Bush will veto the bill, we need a bill that has no such provision.
And, since the bill or bills will not pass without support from those in congress who believe in drilling, the drilling provisions need to be as close to their desires as possible.
Clearly having a state option for drilling is a good idea.
But since Alaskans apparently support drilling, it might make some sense to include some drilling in the least environmentally sensitive parts of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And, since the potential for oil production is so great, it might be wise to add as much as drilling as possible in the Gulf of Mexico.
The drilling provisions need to be just enough to get the bill passed. And, since I strongly believe our economy & maybe our ability to grow food depend on allowing the renewable energy industry to get off the ground NOW, I'd rather see those legislators offered a bit more than the minimum they want to insure the bill or bills pass.
If the renewable energy industry takes off, the economies of scale & new technologies then adopted will make it cost competitive with fossil fuels very soon. And, even ordinary citizens will soon see how real it is.
At that point, & hopefully with a better informed President who actually supports renewable energy, it may work to levy a small tax on the oil companies or fossil fuels or both.
And, it can initially be a very tiny tax. The income tax started as a very tiny tax that only rich people paid. Once such taxes exist, I believe they will increase substantially over time.
But we need to wait until the voters clearly support it and for when trying unsuccessfully to get it does no harm to renewable energy now.
Today, the renewable energy industry is about to really take off. But just like an airliner on the runway having a big truck pull into its path just before take off, the congress is now sitting in its way.
Please let's offer the other side enough of what they want & avoid asking them to support things they will not, so we can pull the truck off the runway.
We can get more things they do not want later when the voters are better informed & there are more legislators who support those things in office.
But for now it's much more important and more doable to work with the current legislators to get a bill that WILL pass & which the President WILL sign that extends the renewable energy tax credits.
Today’s post: Wednesday, 9-10-2008
On the renewable energy tax credits issue.:
Since renewable energy is clearly able to provide very nearly all the energy our economy needs once it is fully developed & both our climate & our economy totally depend on that development beginning right away, THE most important issue is to see to it that those credits are successfully renewed THIS year.
It would be very desirable to have them extended for at least 5 years instead of longer. But whether or not that's done, it's imperative that they be renewed at all THIS YEAR.
Yes, it would be nice to not add more drilling as that has less upside for lowering energy costs, causes some harm to beach areas, & is a bad idea for improving global warming & would actually be somewhat harmful to it.
Yes, since the oil companies see themselves as oil companies instead of energy companies and now have huge cash surpluses, it would be nice to tax them or cancel tax credits they have now to provide more funds for renewable energy.
But as the voters begin to see more progress in renewable energy and more harmful weather events from global warming, their support for drilling will decrease and their support for taxing the oil companies will increase.
Here's my point. If the renewable energy tax credits are not renewed THIS time, it will delay the development of renewable energy just as it is beginning to take off.
Since the credits will NOT be renewed if that's tied to taxing the oil companies because President Bush will veto the bill, we need a bill that has no such provision.
And, since the bill or bills will not pass without support from those in congress who believe in drilling, the drilling provisions need to be as close to their desires as possible.
Clearly having a state option for drilling is a good idea.
But since Alaskans apparently support drilling, it might make some sense to include some drilling in the least environmentally sensitive parts of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And, since the potential for oil production is so great, it might be wise to add as much as drilling as possible in the Gulf of Mexico.
The drilling provisions need to be just enough to get the bill passed. And, since I strongly believe our economy & maybe our ability to grow food depend on allowing the renewable energy industry to get off the ground NOW, I'd rather see those legislators offered a bit more than the minimum they want to insure the bill or bills pass.
If the renewable energy industry takes off, the economies of scale & new technologies then adopted will make it cost competitive with fossil fuels very soon. And, even ordinary citizens will soon see how real it is.
At that point, & hopefully with a better informed President who actually supports renewable energy, it may work to levy a small tax on the oil companies or fossil fuels or both.
And, it can initially be a very tiny tax. The income tax started as a very tiny tax that only rich people paid. Once such taxes exist, I believe they will increase substantially over time.
But we need to wait until the voters clearly support it and for when trying unsuccessfully to get it does no harm to renewable energy now.
Today, the renewable energy industry is about to really take off. But just like an airliner on the runway having a big truck pull into its path just before take off, the congress is now sitting in its way.
Please let's offer the other side enough of what they want & avoid asking them to support things they will not, so we can pull the truck off the runway.
We can get more things they do not want later when the voters are better informed & there are more legislators who support those things in office.
But for now it's much more important and more doable to work with the current legislators to get a bill that WILL pass & which the President WILL sign that extends the renewable energy tax credits.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Beliefs about Energy Solutions....
Today’s post: Wednesday, 9-3-2008
A week ago last Friday on 8-22, 2008 Rasmussen, the polling company released the information that
“….voters believe electric or hybrid cars and nuclear power plants are more likely than solar or wind power to significantly reduce America's dependence on foreign oil. Biofuels such as ethanol are seen as even less likely to help.”
(See www.rasmussenreports.com .) ”….37% believe electric or hybrid cars are Very Likely to have such a positive impact. Thirty-two percent (32%) say the same about nuclear power; 25% are that optimistic about solar power, and 22% say wind power can accomplish the goal.
While none of these alternative energy sources are seen as overwhelmingly likely to reduce dependence on foreign oil, roughly two-thirds or more say each is at least somewhat likely to reduce U.S. reliance on oil from afar.”
As with just about everything in a political season, there is a significant partisan divide.
Forty-seven percent (47%) of Republicans say that nuclear power is Very Likely to help. Just 18% of Democrats share that view. Republican presidential candidate John McCain has called for the building of more nuclear power plants.
Democrats are more confident than Republicans when it comes to electric cars, solar power and wind power, all alternative energy proposals endorsed by Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama.
For unaffiliated voters, it's a little of each, with electric cars and nuclear power seen as the most promising alternatives.”
“…. Voters believe there is an urgent national need to find new sources of energy.
They also believe McCain's priority is to find more energy sources while Obama's is to reduce the amount of energy the United States consumes. That is one reason McCain has caught up to Obama nationally in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll.
The Rasmussen Reports survey also asked about biofuels such as ethanol. Just 17% believe that such fuels are Very Likely to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Another 36% say they are somewhat likely to do so.”
The facts are these from the information I’ve gotten.:
1. The reality is that we badly need to install as much of the wind generation of electricity as we can as the potential is clearly there for a significant contribution from wind. It may not get as high as 20 %; but it clearly can get to 10 % or more. And, it’s already cost competitive with fossil fuels. It’s much safer & less expensive than nuclear power and already being built.
T. Boone Pickens idea to use natural gas for cars probably is not likely to be as productive as massive increases in electric cars and plug in hybrids. But his understanding of & publicity about wind generated electricity and the need to install lots of it and the new transmission lines needed to get it to the urban areas where it will be used is brilliant & much needed.
2. The reality is that solar thermal farms and widely distributed installation of solar photovoltaics of all kinds are at parity with coal for electricity generation for solar thermal farms and already close to it for thin film solar photovoltaics.
Since the potential is available to supply over 100 % of our electricity needs from this combination, it’s crystal clear that if we want to solve global warming and prevent a poor or collapsing economy caused by more increases in gasoline and other fossil fuel prices and/or restricted supply, we need to make very rapid and massive increases in building solar thermal farms & widely distributed installation of solar photovoltaics of all kinds.
It’s doable and has the most ability to bail us out. But it’s not likely to be built on a large enough scale or soon enough if only 25% of the people know this information.
3. Technically nuclear power can make a contribution. And, I think it will be used.
But it should only be built with the appropriate breeder technology to dramatically reduce extremely long lived radioactive wastes and to make it last longer than the projected 35 year supply if we don’t use breeder technology. And, it should only be built if the security against terrorists stealing the fissionable materials in the reactors that easily makes bombs is adequately in place.
This means it will be much more expensive to do safely than the polls suggest people have any clue that it will be.
This means we cannot rely on it that much.
4. Biofuels will help, particularly those made cost effectively from nonfood sources such as agricultural waste or weeds (such as Switchgrass or Kudzu) or algae. Given the installed base of diesel engines and gasoline engines, we will need biofuels for many years if we are to phase out oil as much as we need to do.
But if the battery technology works as well as it looks likely to and the amount of plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles goes up enough it will be enough more efficient to use solar generated electricity to power them that looks like the long term future for transport.
In conclusion, if our voters don’t know this information and see the evidence for it, particularly for the huge potential of solar thermal farms and widely distributed installation of solar photovoltaics of all kinds, they won’t support the building of them enough to keep our economy out of trouble. And we can forget about solving global warming.
According to this Rasmussen survey, this has NOT happened yet.
Secondly, since Barack Obama and the Democrats are best informed & most likely to do the right things, it’s scary that the survey finds a perception of them as being in favor only of conservation and doing without.
If they want to be elected as I think we need for them to be to protect our economy and move towards a solution to global warming, they need very much to get the facts out that massive increases in renewable energy are realistic AND needed to keep our economy from getting much WORSE.
They need to bring home to the average voter, as this survey shows they have NOT done, that they have a realistic plan to not only keep the economy from getting worse but one that will move us to where we can safely have more – and MUCH more than we will otherwise.
The Democrats in this election ARE the ones who will best protect & improve our economy but they need to do an excellent and effective job in letting the voters know it or we are all in trouble.
Today’s post: Wednesday, 9-3-2008
A week ago last Friday on 8-22, 2008 Rasmussen, the polling company released the information that
“….voters believe electric or hybrid cars and nuclear power plants are more likely than solar or wind power to significantly reduce America's dependence on foreign oil. Biofuels such as ethanol are seen as even less likely to help.”
(See www.rasmussenreports.com .) ”….37% believe electric or hybrid cars are Very Likely to have such a positive impact. Thirty-two percent (32%) say the same about nuclear power; 25% are that optimistic about solar power, and 22% say wind power can accomplish the goal.
While none of these alternative energy sources are seen as overwhelmingly likely to reduce dependence on foreign oil, roughly two-thirds or more say each is at least somewhat likely to reduce U.S. reliance on oil from afar.”
As with just about everything in a political season, there is a significant partisan divide.
Forty-seven percent (47%) of Republicans say that nuclear power is Very Likely to help. Just 18% of Democrats share that view. Republican presidential candidate John McCain has called for the building of more nuclear power plants.
Democrats are more confident than Republicans when it comes to electric cars, solar power and wind power, all alternative energy proposals endorsed by Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama.
For unaffiliated voters, it's a little of each, with electric cars and nuclear power seen as the most promising alternatives.”
“…. Voters believe there is an urgent national need to find new sources of energy.
They also believe McCain's priority is to find more energy sources while Obama's is to reduce the amount of energy the United States consumes. That is one reason McCain has caught up to Obama nationally in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll.
The Rasmussen Reports survey also asked about biofuels such as ethanol. Just 17% believe that such fuels are Very Likely to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Another 36% say they are somewhat likely to do so.”
The facts are these from the information I’ve gotten.:
1. The reality is that we badly need to install as much of the wind generation of electricity as we can as the potential is clearly there for a significant contribution from wind. It may not get as high as 20 %; but it clearly can get to 10 % or more. And, it’s already cost competitive with fossil fuels. It’s much safer & less expensive than nuclear power and already being built.
T. Boone Pickens idea to use natural gas for cars probably is not likely to be as productive as massive increases in electric cars and plug in hybrids. But his understanding of & publicity about wind generated electricity and the need to install lots of it and the new transmission lines needed to get it to the urban areas where it will be used is brilliant & much needed.
2. The reality is that solar thermal farms and widely distributed installation of solar photovoltaics of all kinds are at parity with coal for electricity generation for solar thermal farms and already close to it for thin film solar photovoltaics.
Since the potential is available to supply over 100 % of our electricity needs from this combination, it’s crystal clear that if we want to solve global warming and prevent a poor or collapsing economy caused by more increases in gasoline and other fossil fuel prices and/or restricted supply, we need to make very rapid and massive increases in building solar thermal farms & widely distributed installation of solar photovoltaics of all kinds.
It’s doable and has the most ability to bail us out. But it’s not likely to be built on a large enough scale or soon enough if only 25% of the people know this information.
3. Technically nuclear power can make a contribution. And, I think it will be used.
But it should only be built with the appropriate breeder technology to dramatically reduce extremely long lived radioactive wastes and to make it last longer than the projected 35 year supply if we don’t use breeder technology. And, it should only be built if the security against terrorists stealing the fissionable materials in the reactors that easily makes bombs is adequately in place.
This means it will be much more expensive to do safely than the polls suggest people have any clue that it will be.
This means we cannot rely on it that much.
4. Biofuels will help, particularly those made cost effectively from nonfood sources such as agricultural waste or weeds (such as Switchgrass or Kudzu) or algae. Given the installed base of diesel engines and gasoline engines, we will need biofuels for many years if we are to phase out oil as much as we need to do.
But if the battery technology works as well as it looks likely to and the amount of plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles goes up enough it will be enough more efficient to use solar generated electricity to power them that looks like the long term future for transport.
In conclusion, if our voters don’t know this information and see the evidence for it, particularly for the huge potential of solar thermal farms and widely distributed installation of solar photovoltaics of all kinds, they won’t support the building of them enough to keep our economy out of trouble. And we can forget about solving global warming.
According to this Rasmussen survey, this has NOT happened yet.
Secondly, since Barack Obama and the Democrats are best informed & most likely to do the right things, it’s scary that the survey finds a perception of them as being in favor only of conservation and doing without.
If they want to be elected as I think we need for them to be to protect our economy and move towards a solution to global warming, they need very much to get the facts out that massive increases in renewable energy are realistic AND needed to keep our economy from getting much WORSE.
They need to bring home to the average voter, as this survey shows they have NOT done, that they have a realistic plan to not only keep the economy from getting worse but one that will move us to where we can safely have more – and MUCH more than we will otherwise.
The Democrats in this election ARE the ones who will best protect & improve our economy but they need to do an excellent and effective job in letting the voters know it or we are all in trouble.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)