Tag: renewable energy

Categories
Quick Analysis

Unrealistic Energy Policies

Many Americans are shivering from the latest arctic blast of frigid weather. At least, they can warm up in their homes and offices.  Going forward, however, they, and others throughout the world, may not have that option if climate extremists have their way.

The latest push comes, ironically, at a time when NASA statistics indicate that there has been a two-year cooling period. Investors.com notes that Aaron Brown, in a Real Clear Markets analysis of NASA  data indicates that for the past two years, the Earth has actually cooled. “The 2016-2018 Big Chill was composed of two Little chills, the biggest five months drop ever (February to June 2016) and the fourth biggest (February to June 2017). A similar event from February to June 2018 would bring global average temperatures below the 1980s average.“

The climate change debate will rage on, but the need for sufficient energy to heat homes, provide electricity, and keep the economy moving is a constant. Despite that, many politicians have opted for unrealistic energy policies.

New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo has successfully pushed for the closing of one of the state’s nuclear power plants, as well as stopping a major gas pipeline.  He is a staunch opponent of fracking. Politico reports that “Both Con Edison and National Grid [two NY State energy companies] say they may have to turn away new natural gas customers if new pipelines aren’t built…” The New York Post reports that “Con Ed notified regulators that, come March 15, it won’t accept new gas customers in most of Westchester, thanks to supply shortages. National Grid has been issuing similar warnings. New-customer cutoffs in the city may be just around the corner. With no practical replacement fuel for heating, this will throttle residential and commercial growth…Cuomo hasn’t officially banned new pipelines; his staff just doesn’t OK very many, often citing lame excuses for nixing them. Team Cuomo reportedly has urged Con Ed to find alternatives to pipelines, and Cuomo himself has been pushing for a shift away from allfossil-fuel energy sources. Which threatens big trouble for new would-be customers — residential or commercial.”

The U.S. Energy Information Administration notes that “In 2017, about 4,034 billion kilowatthours (kWh) (or 4.03 trillion kWh) of electricity were generated at utility-scale facilities in the United States. About 63% of this electricity generation was from fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, petroleum, and other gases). About 20% was from nuclear energy, and about 17% was from renewable energy sources. The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that an additional 24 billion kWh of electricity generation was from small-scale solar photovoltaic systems in 2017.

There is no realistic expectation that the 17% renewable energy sources could expand to accommodate the other 83% of current energy needs, and the demand for power continues to grow.

While the pollution caused by carbon-based energy is frequently discussed, other forms of energy production have their own drawbacks. Opposition to nuclear power is well-publicized, but wind and solar pose daunting problems, as well.

The Wildlife Society Bulletin estimates that 888,000 bat and 573,000 bird fatalities/year (including 83,000 raptor fatalities) at 51,630 megawatt (MW) of installed wind-energy capacity occurred in the United States in 2012.

To have the entire power of this product one can also take it in empty sale of sildenafil tablets stomach. The treatment of selective mutism cialis mg is mostly undertaken by professional clinicians. This is tadalafil super active a medication used to treat erectile dysfunction of middle aged men. Some are prescription drugs that must, therefore, by viagra super active given out by a physician, while others are just mere myths and speculations.

According to the Brookings Institute, “Adding up the net energy cost and the net capacity cost of the five low-carbon alternatives, far and away the most expensive is solar. It costs almost 19 cents more per KWH than power from the coal or gas plants that it displaces. Wind power is the second most expensive. It costs nearly 6 cents more per KWH.

“To place these additional costs in context, the average cost of electricity to U.S. consumers in 2012 was 9.84 cents per KWH, including the cost of transmission and distribution of electricity. This means a new wind plant could at least cost 50 percent more per KWH to produce electricity, and a new solar plant at least 200 percent more per KWH, than using coal and gas technologies.”

The Energy Reality Project describes the challenges that would be encountered in moving to more emphasis on solar and wind: to generate America’s baseload electric power with a 50 / 50 mix of wind and solar farmsit would take a sufficient amount of land to cover land area totaling the size of Indiana. It would cost over $18 Trillion with Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) farms in the southwest deserts, on parcels of land totaling the area of West Virginia.

“Tad W. Patzek, PhD, Chairman of the Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering Department at the University of Texas at Austin, and David Pimentel, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Cornell University stated … in Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences: “We want to be very clear: solar cells, wind turbines, and biomass-for-energy plantations can never replace even a small fraction of the highly reliable, 24-hours-a-day, 365-days-a-year, nuclear, fossil, and hydroelectric power stations. Claims to the contrary are popular, but irresponsible…”

Categories
Quick Analysis

U.S. Energy Production Surges

In another of a series of  bright spots for the U.S. economy during the past twelve months, Reuters has reported that  “Surging shale production is poised to push U.S. oil output to more than 10 million barrels per day – toppling a record set in 1970 and crossing a threshold few could have imagined even a decade ago…”  America is now poised to rival Russia in energy production.  The productivity level provides lower prices for consumers, and the booming industry provides needed jobs.

The latest news comes just after a month in which in was reported by industry sources  that weekly coal production was surging. The developments, as reported by CNBC‘s Tom DiChristopher, fall in line with President Trump’s goal of making the U.S. “Energy dominant,” a dramatic departure from Obama’s policy. Energy Secretary Rick Perry explained energy dominance to the White House press corps: “An energy dominant America means self-reliant. It means a secure nation, free from the geopolitical turmoil of other nations who seek to use energy as an economic weapon…An energy dominant America will export to markets around the world, increasing our global leadership and our influence.”

In July, Stephen Moore, in a Washington Times editorial noted that “in just six months, “we reduced the petroleum share of the trade deficit by 5 percent…Mr. Trump recognizes what almost all his critics choose to ignore: we are entering an age of American energy renaissance that will last not just years but many decades. While the left keeps placing bad bets on expensive and unreliable green energy, Mr. Trump has a more robust and realistic strategy: make the United States the 21st century Saudi Arabia. We are well on our way getting to that goal given the continuing story of the shale oil and gas explosion…Thanks in part to Mr. Trump’s energy vision, we are now building liquefied gas terminals that will lead to sharp increases in exports of our abundant natural gas. Bloomberg reports that “since starting up last year, Cheniere Energy Inc.’s Sabine Pass terminal in Louisiana — the first major facility sending shale gas overseas — has shipped more than 100 cargoes of LNG overseas.”

The contrast between the Obama Administration and the current White House is extraordinary. Obama, often referred to as the most anti-energy president in U.S. history, roadblocked numerous U.S. energy development programs, including pipelines, offshore drilling, and sought to essentially close down the coal industry through regulation.  Forbes reported in 2016 that “ In 2008, President Bush’s last year in office, the U.S. produced 1.06 billion metric tons of coal — an all-time high. By 2015 it had fallen to 813 million metric tons. [there was]  a decline of 37% in coal production during Obama’s presidency.”

Accepted in 1998 by the FDA, The blue pill is one of a type of disease that can be occurred by few of general sickness like- hypertension, high blood pressure, disorder of central brain system etc. women viagra order on line cialis cute-n-tiny.com Information then travels from the brain to every cell in the body. You can also choose cash on delivery option is also available for the customers.There is few side effects cause by low price viagra taking Kamagra jelly in inappropriate way. One pill can work upon your impotence problem so purchase levitra cute-n-tiny.com nicely that you can never think before. Valerie Richardson, also writing for the Washington Times,  in March that “Oil and natural gas production on federal lands tanked under [Obama’s] tenure even as private activity increased. From 2008 to 2016, major indicators of federal onshore and natural gas operations declined, including the number of leases, acres leased, permits approved and wells being drilled, according to the Western Energy Alliance in Denver…Rep. Rob Bishop, Utah Republican and House Natural Resources Committee chairman, said…that production on federally managed lands ‘was all but impossible under the Obama administration,” citing bureaucratic red tape and fewer leases offered.’ The FY2016 figures reflect “the lowest amount of leased acreage for the years statistically available, since 1988,” with leased acreage during the eight-year period falling by 20 million…“These numbers reflect steadfast efforts by the Obama administration to squelch responsible energy development,” Mr. Bishop said.

Continue reading “U.S. Energy Production Surges”
Categories
Quick Analysis

Plans to completely replace carbon energy with wind & solar are not practical

In the recent debate among Democrat presidential candidates, global warming, and the proposed actions proposed in response to it, was a major topic. However, the prevailing orthodoxy among left-wing politicians, pundits, and educational bureaucrats, about man-made global warming is being challenged.

The facts opposing the theory are substantial.

  • Long before the industrial revolution, Earth had periods when it experienced a warming trend, some more so than the current era.
  • During the latest period of global warming, other planets in the solar system, quite removed from human activity, also displayed some warming.
  • In the past 15 years, it appears that global warming has stopped.
  • The ice cover, when measured on a planetary wide scale, does not appear to be significantly receding.
  • Despite President Obama’s contention that the concept is “settled science,” vast numbers of scientists disagree.
  • Astronomers specializing in the Sun assert that solar activity is the engine of planetary temperatures, not human activity.
  • Scandals have erupted over various institutions falsifying data to make claims of global warming seem more genuine.
  • Some scientists even contend that global warming, if it did occur, could do more to help than harm the environment.

But the look may vary in case of generic products as they make a significant difference in composition of generic prescription viagra http://djpaulkom.tv/problems-of-intercourse-development-atypical/ is that the inactive substances like color are usually different. You can maintain erection cheap buy viagra quality for long duration and satisfy her in bed. Ask the medicine from an authorized medical pharmacy and can be purchased at very economic prices. cheapest cialis australia Not only so, men also experience low self-esteem and broken buy online viagra this relationship.
Former Governor O’Malley focused heavily during the Democrat debate on his proposal for a carbon-free energy deadline of 2050. Is that goal, whether necessary or not, attainable? We reviewed available facts about the affordability, practicality, viability, and potential side effects of eliminating carbon-based energy.

The United States currently obtains energy from a variety of means. According to the Energy Information Administration  In 2014, the United States generated about 4,093 billion kilowatthours of electricity. About 67% of the electricity generated was from fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and petroleum). Major energy sources and percent share of total U.S. electricity generation in 2014 were:

  • Coal = 39%
  • Natural gas = 27%
  • Nuclear = 19%
  • Hydropower = 6%
  • Other renewables = 7%
    • Biomass = 1.7%
    • Geothermal = 0.4%
    • Solar = 0.4%
    • Wind = 4.4%
  • Petroleum = 1%
  • Other gases < 1%

 

While the pollution caused by carbon-based energy is frequently discussed, other forms of energy production have their own drawbacks. Opposition to nuclear power is well-publicized, but wind and solar pose daunting problems, as well.

The Wildlife Society Bulletin estimates that 888,000 bat and 573,000 bird fatalities/year (including 83,000 raptor fatalities) at 51,630 megawatt (MW) of installed wind-energy capacity occurred in the United States in 2012.

According to the Brookings Institute, “Adding up the net energy cost and the net capacity cost of the five low-carbon alternatives, far and away the most expensive is solar. It costs almost 19 cents more per KWH than power from the coal or gas plants that it displaces. Wind power is the second most expensive. It costs nearly 6 cents more per KWH.

“To place these additional costs in context, the average cost of electricity to U.S. consumers in 2012 was 9.84 cents per KWH, including the cost of transmission and distribution of electricity. This means a new wind plant could at least cost 50 percent more per KWH to produce electricity, and a new solar plant at least 200 percent more per KWH, than using coal and gas technologies.”

The Energy Reality Project describes the challenges that would be encountered in moving to more emphasis on solar and wind: to generate America’s baseload electric power with a 50 / 50 mix of wind and solar farmsit would take a sufficient amount of land to cover land area totaling the size of Indiana. It would cost over $18 Trillion with Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) farms in the southwest deserts, on parcels of land totaling the area of West Virginia.

“Tad W. Patzek, PhD, Chairman of the Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering Department at the University of Texas at Austin, and David Pimentel, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Cornell University stated … in Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences: “We want to be very clear: solar cells, wind turbines, and biomass-for-energy plantations can never replace even a small fraction of the highly reliable, 24-hours-a-day, 365-days-a-year, nuclear, fossil, and hydroelectric power stations. Claims to the contrary are popular, but irresponsible…”