Alternative Energy Suddenly Faces Headwinds

[groovedaddy]

HOUSTON — For all the support that the presidential candidates are expressing for renewable energy, alternative energies like wind and solar are facing big new challenges because of the credit freeze and the plunge in oil and natural gas prices.

Shares of alternative energy companies have fallen even more sharply than the rest of the stock market in recent months. The struggles of financial institutions are raising fears that investment capital for big renewable energy projects is likely to get tighter.

Advocates are concerned that if the prices for oil and gas keep falling, the incentive for utilities and consumers to buy expensive renewable energy will shrink. That is what happened in the 1980s when a decade of advances for alternative energy collapsed amid falling prices for conventional fuels.

“Everyone is in shock about what the new world is going to be,” said V. John White, executive director of the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technology, a California advocacy group. “Surely, renewable energy projects and new technologies are at risk because of their capital intensity.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/21/business/21energy.html?th&emc=th

[redqueen]

1. These analysts seem to think we have a choice...

which we don't... unless they consider continuing to trash the planet a viable option.

[groovedaddy]

2. Exactly. When will the reality of global warming sink in? n.t

[GliderGuider]

3. Nobody's going to build windmills for free.

The cold calculus of economics dictate that we will trash the planet. Remember Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs - cheap energy supports Level 1, expensive green energy is way up at Level 5. Without enough money to fully supply Level 1 needs, who will give a rat's ass about Level 5?

[redqueen]

4. Without enough money?

Are you saying we'll be bankrupt, and unable to pay for anything but food stamps?

[GliderGuider]

5. It's a possibility.

If the Dow goes to 1000 by the end of 2010, and half the $600 trillion in the global derivative market evaporates over the same term, and global housing prices crash by another 80%, and the world's credit market doesn't respond to the its injections of taxpayer heroin and remains frozen in a catatonic stupor, then I think food stamps (or some other suitably impoverished variant thereof) are a real possibility in every nation on Earth before 2015.

I truly believe I'm being realistic here. The global financial crisis is far, far worse than most of us have grokked. We may be looking at a complete global financial collapse by 2015, one that we cannot recover from -- at least not with an economy that runs on anything like the same terms as it does today. That means no credit for large-scale infrastructure projects -- not in energy, or transportation or climate change mitigation or any of the other big credit-consuming enterprises we need to undertake in order to keep this runaway train of a civilization on the rails. We will be using all the available money just to keep what we have now from crashing too badly.

We'd be far better advised to spend our limited personal resources of time, money and effort on strengthening our immediate communities and developing the personal insight and resilience we'll need to see us through.

[redqueen]

6. Hm.

If that is the case, then perhaps a silver lining is that we'll be financially unable to continue trashing the planet.

[GliderGuider]

7. The colour of the lining isn't silver

It's as black as coal -- the coal that we will continue to burn because it's cheap.

[kristopher]

8. Just like the TVA...

...and the original effort to electrify the US, large scale infrastructure initiatives have taken place when governments have been "broke". There is no reason to believe that with the PROPER policies in place, we can't both revitalize the economy and move to a renewable energy infrastructure.

As long as McCain doesn't steal the election, it is a good bet that we'll see the move to renewables get well underway in the first two years of the Obama administration. If you listen to his speeches it is clear that he plans what can only be a New Deal type of direct investment approach to the quartet of problems: unemployment, energy security, economic growth, and climate change.

[GliderGuider]

10. The TVA elecrification program relied on building massive hydroelectric dams.

Those dams were irretrievably harmful to the river ecosystems they disrupted. The parallels between that and the ecological damage that will be done by the growth of coal generation in the looming Great Depression II are uncomfortably close.

The TVA can only be seen as beneficial if one adopts a purely anthropocentric and short-term perspective. One of the unlearned lessons from the TVA is that humans can continue to trash the planet even if we don't have much money.

[kristopher]

11. Your mewling retro environmentalism is beside the point

The discussion is about the ability of the nation to establish a renewable infrastructure during tough economic times. Continued dependence on fossil fuels solves NONE of our major problems; moving to renewable works to address all of them. Obama is committed to this move, McCain isn't. If Obama wins, we WILL transition to renewables, if McCain wins we wont.

In other words, the limiting factor is political, not economic.

[GliderGuider]

13. You have more faith in Obama than I do.

He is beholden to the same economic masters as McCain. He may object to that fact a bit more than McCain, but he can't escape it. Yes, the primary problem is political. That doesn't mean it's soluble.

As long as we think the solution to our multi-factorial ecological/energy problems lies in technology, science, economics or political debates we will go nowhere. There are useful responses, but they do not lie in those domains. Those who insist on directing our time, attention, money and energy down these rabbit holes are doing humanity and all other forms of life on this planet a catastrophic disservice.

I do like the word "mewling", though.

[NNadir]

15. Mewling retroenviromentalism, from you?

Your description of yourself as an evironmentalist - given that you oppose the world's largest, by far, form of climate change gas free energy - and support only consumerist driven yuppie toys, like the dangerous expensive electronic waste - solar energy - is very, very, very, very, very, very, very dubious.

I have never met a dangerous fossil fuel apologist who did anything but break his or her arm congratulating himself on his or her consumerism that he or she re-brands as envirnomentalism.

[kristopher]

17. So, who are going to vote for, Obama or McCain?

McCain promises to deploy nuclear power and fund research into renewables, and Obama is planning to deploy renewables and fund research into dealing with nuclear waste.

You've clearly stated your priorities 10s of 1000's of times, so I ask you directly - who are you voting for and why?

[bananas]

9. There's another factor, which I warned about last year

The solar industry was expected to enter a shake-out period starting this year.

Dec'07: Heads Up: Grid parity in 5-8 years, but industry shake-out could start next year
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bananas/464

Jan'08: Time To Move On to the Next Bubble: Clean Energy
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bananas/487

Jun'08: The solar power business is bracing itself for a collapse in prices
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bananas/554

[kristopher]

12. I disagree

Your position is predicated on a continuation of the current policy approach, which is oriented around a political reality favoring a business as usual approach. The demand that has driven the expansion of solar is lagging at this moment - true. That is a product of two factors, however, current economic circumstances operating in conjunction with current energy policy. If/when Obama changes the current policies related to energy, that will alter the economic parameters also and firmly establish a huge demand.

[Nihil]

14. The problem is that "if/when" in your response.

> If/when Obama changes the current policies related to energy,
> that will alter the economic parameters also and firmly establish
> a huge demand.

If the "Obama changes" remain an "if" then there is absolutely no difference
to the current situation (except everything gets worse due to acceleration).
Result = we're f*cked.

If the "Obama changes" become a "when" then there is indeed hope and your
optimism/faith is proven well-founded. Result = we're (potentially) saved.

Unfortunately, all of the time *until* it changes - or rather until any
worthwhile changes actually make it into practice - the real world is
operating with a "continuation of the current policy approach, which is
oriented around a political reality favoring a business as usual approach".

i.e., Waiting on a politician's pre-election "promises" is NOT a solution
as it is actively promoting the current unsatisfactory situation.

[kristopher]

16. So what else do you think can be done in the next 12 days?

We are standing at a fork in the road awaiting a decision that involves 300+ million people. At this point, there is nothing to do but wait.

[Nihil]

18. 12 days is laughable compared to the real delay ...

... or did you miss my comment about the timescale of "changes" being implemented
in the real world?

After the comparative "instant" of 12 days, the US (hopefully) gets a half-way sensible
president (for the first time in 8 years).

A few months later than that, said president takes power.

How many years after that is it going to be before any of these pre-election promises
(that you are faithfully awaiting) actually appear on paper?

How many more years after that in turn will it be before they are implemented?

How much longer is the sermon of "all things come to those who wait" going to be preached?

The EPA (as little as it was) is being gutted day by day.

Meaningful conservation programmes are withering on the vine.

The dumbshit population *STILL* doesn't appreciate the situation outside of their own
city limits never mind the truly global issues that are involved here.

The financial, political and diplomatic messes being strewn across Obama's path will
take up all his time (other than the obligatory photo-ops to pacify the waiting faithful)
for most of the next 3 year presidential term (the fourth being traditionally spent for
the purpose of obtaining re-election).

Time and tide waits for no man. Neither does climate change.

[kristopher]

19. And your rant has what to do with anything???

I get it, you're just pissed that the guy that is going to win actually wants to do something and it ISN'T to build more toxin spewing, nuclear bomb enabling nuclear power plants.

[Nihil]

20. Just what the f*ck are you on about?

Did you write that crap in the wrong place or something?
:wtf:

ETA: The thread that *I* am following is this ...

I questioned your (faith-driven) response that was claiming that the
assumption of "continuation of the current policy approach" was incorrect.
Your actual words were
>>> If/when Obama changes the current policies related to energy,
>>> that will alter the economic parameters also and firmly establish
>>> a huge demand.

My response to that was
>> Unfortunately, all of the time *until* it changes - or rather until
>> any worthwhile changes actually make it into practice - the real world
>> is operating with a "continuation of the current policy approach, which
>> is oriented around a political reality favoring a business as usual
>> approach".

Your response seemed off track:
> So what else do you think can be done in the next 12 days?

hence my explanation of the folly of the "12 day" strawman

> ... or did you miss my comment about the timescale of "changes"
> being implemented in the real world?
+
> The EPA (as little as it was) is being gutted day by day.
> Meaningful conservation programmes are withering on the vine.
+
> The financial, political and diplomatic messes being strewn across
> Obama's path will take up all his time (other than the obligatory
> photo-ops to pacify the waiting faithful) for most of the next 3 year
> presidential term (the fourth being traditionally spent for the purpose
> of obtaining re-election).

which you promptly ignore with a random rant

> I get it, you're just pissed that the guy that is going to win actually
> wants to do something

I don't have your blind faith in politicians.

1) I am not as convinced as you are that Obama will actually bring
significant change to the energy industry as he has already snuggled
up to the coal industry and adopted their greenwash of "clean coal".

2) Even if he breaks the mould for a politician and does what he has
promised to do before the election, Bush is still in the process of
leaving landmines all over Obama's path that he will HAVE to deal with
(e.g., financial markets to ensure that there is money for his programmes,
brewing wars, generating as many revenge terrorists as possible) before
going on to any non-emergency issues (including minor stuff like health,
education and transport).

3) Given the massive amounts of wilful ignorance of the outside world
by most of the US electorate, the difficulties he will have in trying
to obtain funding for environmental problems (vs health, education, blah)
are immense.

*This* is why I am questioning your blind faith in "what might happen" ...
not any strawman bullshit about nuclear bombs.

So, like I said, :wtf: ?

[kristopher]

21. It isn't "blind faith"

Energy security, jobs, foreign entanglements, climate change, a declining stock market, and high value added infrastructure are all major problems that are addressed by acting RAPIDLY to move our energy infrastructure to renewables. Obama has made it clear that he holds that view. Major change in policy direction requires a coming together of many factors that create a window of opportunity for change. The present situation we find ourselves in provides that window in grand style.

You are off on a tangent because this thread is about whether or not the economic slowdown is going to derail the momentum for growth in the renewable energy sector. Instead of dealing with that, you prefer to go off on a rant about how you don't trust Obama to carry through on his stated objectives. It seems to me that you are dedicated to negative assessments with a vigor that can only be called perverse.

So please, feel free to piss off.

[Nihil]

22. Of course it is!

Your desire for "acting RAPIDLY to move our energy infrastructure
to renewables" is being waved around like a magic wand wherein any
real-world criticism is dismissed by fantasy rants and accusations
of "negative assessments".

Obama has made his pre-election support for renewables clear.
I do not disagree with that. This is one thing that puts him miles
ahead of McFail (one of many) and, I believe, is one of the reasons
that Obama will be elected next month.

Obama has also made his pre-election support for "clean coal" (spit!)
equally clear. You prefer dismissing this by putting your fingers
in your ears and closing your eyes rather than accepting that this
is *EXACTLY* the same class of pre-electoral promise that you are
desparately hanging onto for your fairyland solution.

I'm not the one "off on a tangent" here.

This thread is *absolutely* about how the economic slowdown is going
to derail the momentum for growth in the renewable energy sector.
Many posters upthread have shown this.

You prefer to pretend that
1) it isn't being affected and
2) even if it was, everything will all be alright again very very soon.

You are "on a tangent", one populated with strawmen about "nuclear bombs"
and "12 days", and one whose few honest & accurate points included your
original admission of doubt:
>>> If/when Obama changes the current policies related to energy

I simply pointed out that the "if/when" is not incidental, it is *critical*
as it is the foundation of hope for the future of the US. As such, I am
definitely uncomfortable on betting the entire game on the chances of a
politician's pre-election promises being implemented correctly and in a
timely fashion.

Your faith in your leader is touching ... rather like that of those people
in Jonestown ...

> So please, feel free to piss off.

And you.

Have a nice weekend.

[kristopher]

23. Asked before: What is the alternative?

Unless you have some grand plan that no one else in the world has come up with, then your *only* alternative is to wait/work for Obama to be elected and then wait/hope to see if he follows through.

Unlike the other posters you refer to, I believe I have a grasp of what is actually happening with the politics and policies involving the move to renewables. The OP incorrectly identified the problem as an economic one; it is clear that events in this sphere over next couple of years has much less to do with economics than with governmental policies that structure our economic and energy systems.
Your claim that Obama's remarks about clean coal are on a par with his remarks about renewables is absurd. From the beginning he has focused on DEPLOYING renewables, with RESEARCH into clean coal and nuclear - which is fine by me.

Your comments have totally failed to address the central points I've made and instead have focused on attacking me and the Democratic candidate. Since you have made clear your support for nuclear energy and your disdain for renewables, I really have trouble believing your remarks are motivated by actual concern about whether he will fulfill the clearly and often stated central platform of his campaign. Perhaps you could clarify your position; because from where I'm sitting all I see is a person saying the grapes are sour.