Interesting article from SolarReviews.com

[SunEagle]

Howdy All, Love this thread. When I read the article I thought, well fair enough, if I was operating one of the old coal fired power stations I think I would be looking to replace it with gas, you guys have got heaps of gas from fracking, and then also put in a large solar array ready for when batteries get cheaper, then whack in a huge storage system when the prices make sense. The job loses from the old industry's is very sad but you (in my opinion) have to keep looking at the bright side, didnt standard oil run full page ads when they went from oil lamps to electric lights, claiming lives would be in danger, many jobs were lost. We got through that change I think we can get through the next one too Cheers everybody.

I agree that a step change in technology will mean some people lose out. For me it is a little personal since I know a number of people in the power generating field and some work in coal fired plants. With the new rules of 32% reduction by 2030 it could mean the plants they work in get closed down a lot sooner then originally scheduled. At my friends age finding a similar paying jobs will not be easy and will put a strain on them and their families. Unfortunately that hits me closer to home and I get a little defensive concerning this subject of coal elimination.

[solar pete]

I agree that a step change in technology will mean some people lose out. For me it is a little personal since I know a number of people in the power generating field and some work in coal fired plants. With the new rules of 32% reduction by 2030 it could mean the plants they work in get closed down a lot sooner then originally scheduled. At my friends age finding a similar paying jobs will not be easy and will put a strain on them and their families. Unfortunately that hits me closer to home and I get a little defensive concerning this subject of coal elimination.

Thats fair enough mate. Its easy for me sitting in Australia where I dont have anyone close to me who is likely to lose out in the transition period. I hope your friends are able to find something when the time comes.

Sent you a PM re editing, looks like the new server thing will happen by the end of next week

[Naptown]

Are you saying there are no more paper mills in Maine? Where do they send to timber to be processed and please don't tell me it's China.

There are several but not to the extent there once were.
I suspect the majority of pulp wood is now sent to Canada. This makes sense considering the proximity
Pulp wood is one of the major economic segments in Maine.
Something like 80% is timber land.

[emartin00]

Are you saying there are no more paper mills in Maine? Where do they send to timber to be processed and please don't tell me it's China.

A lot of it goes to Canada, but there are still a number of wood mills that produce lumber.
The wood pellet industry has taken up a good portion of the chip wood too.

[J.P.M.]

I agree that a step change in technology will mean some people lose out. For me it is a little personal since I know a number of people in the power generating field and some work in coal fired plants. With the new rules of 32% reduction by 2030 it could mean the plants they work in get closed down a lot sooner then originally scheduled. At my friends age finding a similar paying jobs will not be easy and will put a strain on them and their families. Unfortunately that hits me closer to home and I get a little defensive concerning this subject of coal elimination.

I don't think demand for power will decrease or even level off any time in the foreseeable future, and as we all know, or at least hear a lot, R.E. will not put a significant dent in supply for about the same time into that future. So, assuming the demand will be met by market forces, where will the power come from ? One place is new power plants. Those new plants may be somewhat more efficient than what they replace and so will probably require less labor, but it doesn't seem to me that closing a plant sooner translates into an automatic job loss. Things get old, wear out and need to be upgraded or replaced. Things that replace the old might mean products (power) get more expensive, and some may argue that too soon replacement and the mandated bells/whistles are a waste, but the demand will be there and I bet it will be met one way or some others.

[SunEagle]

I don't think demand for power will decrease or even level off any time in the foreseeable future, and as we all know, or at least hear a lot, R.E. will not put a significant dent in supply for about the same time into that future. So, assuming the demand will be met by market forces, where will the power come from ? One place is new power plants. Those new plants may be somewhat more efficient than what they replace and so will probably require less labor, but it doesn't seem to me that closing a plant sooner translates into an automatic job loss. Things get old, wear out and need to be upgraded or replaced. Things that replace the old might mean products (power) get more expensive, and some may argue that too soon replacement and the mandated bells/whistles are a waste, but the demand will be there and I bet it will be met one way or some others.

I agree with that possibility. Although the few "new" Nuclear plants have been canceled and new Nat Gas systems are not getting that much traction. Also some of the smaller independent gas fired plants are being bought up by the big guys which reduces the options of who you get your power from so I do not see the Big guys building anything new quickly.

Except for recent glamorous advertisements, none of the POCO's have made any serious plans to increase their solar power generation. So with the chance of coal going away (which is over 51% of how TECO generates), no new Nuclear plants being built and Solar coming in at a snails pace the remaining power must come from Nat Gas which in the past has had a lot of cost fluctuations and IMO will rise up to be much more costly then coal generation.

Fl being a peninsula does not have a lot of paths to import power so we are (and have been) held responsible for generating our own. If that is the case then I would like to have a larger selection of power sources and losing a big one (coal) does not make me warm and fuzzy should we get hit with a major Demand spike or lose some generating plants due to hurricanes. The safety line is just too thin.

Again I am venting more for the certain loss of jobs for my friends and the good potential of seeing my electric rates jump due to limit resources to generate.

[inetdog]

And daddy, won't you take me back to Muhlenberg County
Down by the Green River where Paradise lay?
Well, I'm sorry, my son, but you're too late in asking
Mr. Peabody's coal train has hauled it away.

John Fogarty, Paradise

[SunEagle]

John Fogarty, Paradise

+1. Great song.

[Ward L]

A transition from fossil fuels to RE won't happen because of short term economics. Fossil fuels will remain the cheapest way to drive a car or generate electricity for a long time (It is "greener" to buy a used Honda and get 25 MPG than buy a new Prius and get 50 MPG when you consider manufacturing). Just when RE is economic, oil prices will drop just enough to make RE more expensive. We are benefiting (unless you are an oil company) from fracking producing more oil right now. How about the thousands of people losing their jobs right now because of lower oil company profits? If you (or the government) wants to transition more RE use, they have to provide economic incentives. I expect we have all had a government incentive that changed our behavior one time or another. We probably would not have one tenth of the solar panels up if it weren't for the tax credit. It certainly isn't perfect, but it is the way a capitalistic government works. We have uneconomic use of ethanol and biodiesel in our fuel now.

Coal is the big bogey. We have to stop using coal if we are going to make less CO2. Right now we are shipping US coal to Asia! Everyone here with a tax qualifying solar panel on their roof got a tax credit. We would have produced so much less CO2 if we never installed solar power, stopped using coal and ethanol and just started using natural gas. But that wouldn't push the development of solar energy or pushed the farmer's agenda to grow corn.

Wondering now if I've hacked a thread. I know, I know, few people here really don't care about reducing the amount of CO2 they generate......

[SunEagle]

A transition from fossil fuels to RE won't happen because of short term economics. Fossil fuels will remain the cheapest way to drive a car or generate electricity for a long time (It is "greener" to buy a used Honda and get 25 MPG than buy a new Prius and get 50 MPG when you consider manufacturing). Just when RE is economic, oil prices will drop just enough to make RE more expensive. We are benefiting (unless you are an oil company) from fracking producing more oil right now. How about the thousands of people losing their jobs right now because of lower oil company profits? If you (or the government) wants to transition more RE use, they have to provide economic incentives. I expect we have all had a government incentive that changed our behavior one time or another. We probably would not have one tenth of the solar panels up if it weren't for the tax credit. It certainly isn't perfect, but it is the way a capitalistic government works. We have uneconomic use of ethanol and biodiesel in our fuel now.

Coal is the big bogey. We have to stop using coal if we are going to make less CO2. Right now we are shipping US coal to Asia! Everyone here with a tax qualifying solar panel on their roof got a tax credit. We would have produced so much less CO2 if we never installed solar power, stopped using coal and ethanol and just started using natural gas. But that wouldn't push the development of solar energy or pushed the farmer's agenda to grow corn.

Wondering now if I've hacked a thread. I know, I know, few people here really don't care about reducing the amount of CO2 they generate......

I wouldn't say you hack the thread more like providing additional information and viewpoint. The discussion is good.

The question is how quickly can you get rid of the pollution yet not hurt the economy? Everyone has their idea based on their personal experience and feelings. IMO there is no simple answer.

[Naptown]

John Fogarty, Paradise

+1. Great song.

John Prine not Fogarty.

[robertreed]

Reply

Howdy All,

Just saw this article about the White House's plan for clean renewable energy

http://www.solarreviews.com/news/whie_house_clean_power_plan_080315/

P.S SK I dont think you should read it, it may make your head explode

Thanks for the information

[DaboyWonder]

thanks for sharing

[SunEagle]

thanks for sharing

Hello DaboyWonder

It is usually a red flag and a warning to the Mods when someone just makes their first post attached to an existing thread and doesn't really say much.

If you want to join then please start your own post in the New Members Thread and tell us a little about your self.

[lkruper]

Hello DaboyWonder

It is usually a red flag and a warning to the Mods when someone just makes their first post attached to an existing thread and doesn't really say much.

If you want to join then please start your own post in the New Members Thread and tell us a little about your self.

Someone or something