Members banned from this thread: Cypress, evince, domer76, archives, Nomad, Micawber, Jade Dragon and StoneByStone


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 19

Thread: ANALYSIS: COST OF U.S. TRANSITION TO 100% RENEWABLES – $4.5 TRILLION

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default ANALYSIS: COST OF U.S. TRANSITION TO 100% RENEWABLES – $4.5 TRILLION

    A June 2019 analysis from Scottish consulting firm Wood Mackenzie estimates the cost of transitioning the United States to 100 percent renewable energy by 2030, as recommended by the “Green New Deal” and other overzealous climate change plans, would cost at least $4.5 trillion over that time period.

    “For any country to embrace a nationwide transition to 100 percent renewable energy … or zero carbon … emissions constitutes a massive disruption with far-flung economic and social repercussions,” the analysis states. In the United States, that means a $35,000 cost to each household, around $1,750 per year for 20 years.

    “The total price of transition,” the analysis states, “includes everything needed to reliably produce and deliver clean energy to consumers. This price includes building and operating generation facilities, making capacity payments, investing in transmission and distribution infrastructure, delivering customer-facing grid edge technology and more.”

    This is not the first analysis to show the high cost of radical plans to decarbonize the economy in a single generation. The American Action Forum estimates the costs of moving the entire country to 100 percent renewable sources would be $5.7 trillion, or $42,000 per household. A 2019 brief from the Institute for Energy Research estimates getting to 100 percent renewable generation is “nothing more than a myth,” and attempting to do so would be an economic “catastrophe” for the United States.

    As James Taylor of The Heartland Institute notes in a recent Policy Brief, “Building the wind turbines and solar facilities needed to power the United States under the provisions of the Green New Deal [or any other decarbonization plan] would result in the destruction of tens of millions of acres of habitat for countless species across the country, including some endangered species.” To replace one conventional natural gas or coal plant with a wind farm capable of generating similar capacity requires approximately 300 square miles of land. Taylor notes replacing every conventional power plant in the United States with wind and solar facilities would require an amount of land about the size of California.

    Unfortunately, several states are adopting renewable energy mandates (REMs) of 100 percent. These include California, Hawaii, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, and the District of Columbia. Twenty-three other states have passed REMs, also known as renewable portfolio standards, of a smaller scale. However, even these smaller plans are extremely costly to electricity consumers.

    A 2019 working paper from the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago showed REMs are dramatically increasing retail electricity prices and are a very expensive way to try to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. According to the study, seven years after REMs are enacted, renewables’ share of electricity generation increases by only 1.8 percent. The authors also found REMs raise retail electricity prices by 11 percent. After 12 years and a 4.2 percent increase in renewables’ share of generation, these prices rise by 17 percent. Altogether, the total extra electricity costs of REMs to consumers in the states that have enacted an REM are $125.2 billion.

    The study also reveals reducing carbon dioxide emissions through an REM costs $130 – $460 per ton of carbon dioxide abated. These increased costs are, at the low end, almost three times higher than the social cost of carbon estimated by the Interagency Working Group set up by the Obama administration, which is roughly $46 per ton for 2020. It should be noted that whether there is a “social cost” to carbon dioxide emissions at all is debatable.

    In just 12 states, the total net cost of renewable mandates was $5.76 billion in 2016 and will rise to $8.8 billion in 2030, a 2016 study revealed. A 2014 study by the left-leaning Brookings Institution found replacing conventional power with wind power raises electricity prices 50 percent and replacing conventional power with solar power triples electricity costs.

    Unsurprisingly, in states with REMs, energy rates are rising twice as fast as the national average and states with renewable mandates had electricity prices 26 percent higher than those without. The 29 states with renewable energy mandates (plus the District of Columbia) had average retail electricity prices of 11.93 cents per kilowatt hour (cents/kWh), according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. On the other hand, the 21 states without renewable mandates had average retail electricity prices of just 9.38 cents/kWh.

    Renewable energy mandates force expensive, heavily subsidized, and politically favored electricity sources such as wind and solar on ratepayers and taxpayers while providing few, if any, net environmental benefits. State legislators should not mandate the use of renewable sources in electricity generation. Such mandates raise energy costs and disproportionally harm low-income families. Instead of trying to increase renewable mandates, legislators should repeal them.

    The following documents provide more information on renewable energy mandates and fossil fuels.

    Do Renewable Portfolio Standards Deliver?

    https://bfi.uchicago.edu/working-pap...dards-deliver/

    This working paper from the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago finds that average retail electricity prices in states after the passage of a renewable energy mandate are 11 percent higher after seven years and 17 percent higher after a dozen years, even though the increase in renewable electricity generation is a minimal 1-4 percent.

    The 100 Percent Renewable Energy Myth

    https://www.instituteforenergyresear...y-Brief219.pdf

    This Policy Brief from the Institute for Energy Research argues that a countrywide 100 percent renewable plan would put the U.S. economy in jeopardy. The brief investigates the intermittency, land requirements, capacity factors, and cost of transition and construction materials that limit the ability of the U.S. to adapt to 100 percent renewable energy.

    Evaluating the Costs and Benefits of Renewable Portfolio Standards

    https://www.heartland.org/publicatio...urce=policybot

    This paper by Timothy J. Considine, a distinguished professor of energy economics at the School of Energy Resources and the Department of Economics and Finance at the University of Wyoming, examines the renewable portfolio standards (RPS) of 12 different states and concludes while RPS investments stimulate economic activity, the negative economic impacts associated with higher electricity prices offset the claimed economic advantages of these RPS investments.

    Policy Brief: The Green New Deal: A Grave Threat to the American Economy, Environment, and Freedom

    https://www.heartland.org/_template-...nNewDealPB.pdf

    The Heartland Policy Brief argues the Green New Deal is a dangerous combination of environmental extremism and socialism. The tremendously expensive proposal would devastate the U.S. economy and cause more environmental destruction than protection. The provisions of the Green New Deal pose a dangerous threat to the American values of individual freedom and limited government.

    Legislating Energy Poverty: A Case Study of How California’s and New York’s Climate Change Policies Are Increasing Energy Costs and Hurting the Economy

    https://www.pacificresearch.org/wp-c...ergy_F_Web.pdf

    This analysis from Wayne Winegarden of the Pacific Research Institute shows the big government approach to fighting climate change taken by California and New York hits working class and minority communities the hardest. The paper reviews the impact of global warming policies adopted in California and New York, such as unrealistic renewable energy goals, strict low carbon fuel standards, and costly subsidies for buying higher-priced electric cars and installing solar panels. The report’s authors found that collectively these expensive and burdensome policies are dramatically increasing the energy burdens of their respective state residents.

    The U.S. Leads the World in Clean Air: The Case for Environmental Optimism

    https://files.texaspolicy.com/upload...ACEE-White.pdf

    This paper from the Texas Public Policy Foundation examines how the United States achieved robust economic growth while dramatically reducing emissions of air pollutants. The paper states that these achievements should be celebrated as a public policy success story, but instead the prevailing narrative among political and environmental leaders is one of environmental decline that can only be reversed with a more stringent regulatory approach. The paper urges for the data to be considered and applied to the narrative.

    The Social Benefits of Fossil Fuels

    https://www.heartland.org/publicatio...f-fossil-fuels

    This Heartland Policy Brief by Joseph Bast and Peter Ferrara documents the many benefits from the historic and still ongoing use of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are lifting billions of people out of poverty, reducing all the negative effects of poverty on human health, and vastly improving human well-being and safety by powering labor-saving and life-protecting technologies, such as air conditioning, modern medicine, and cars and trucks. They are dramatically increasing the quantity of food humans produce and improving the reliability of the food supply, directly benefiting human health. Further, fossil fuel emissions are possibly contributing to a “Greening of the Earth,” benefiting all the plants and wildlife on the planet.

    Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels – Summary for Policymakers

    https://www.heartland.org/publicatio...r-policymakers

    In this fifth volume of the Climate Change Reconsidered series, 117 scientists, economists, and other experts assess the costs and benefits of the use of fossil fuels by reviewing scientific and economic literature on organic chemistry, climate science, public health, economic history, human security, and theoretical studies based on integrated assessment models and cost-benefit analysis.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/...-4-5-trillion/

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to cancel2 2022 For This Post:

    anatta (07-10-2019)

  3. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    I have little doubt that most Americans have little to no idea of the true costs involved in renewables.

  4. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    14,413
    Thanks
    308
    Thanked 7,511 Times in 4,834 Posts
    Groans
    17
    Groaned 1,798 Times in 1,605 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Let's just for the helluva assume had the technology NOT BE THWARTED, fought, resisted against, lied about, lobbied against and data MANIPULATED for, we'll say, JUST the LAST 15 - 20 YEARS where would we be? (And this could have started well before that!) Do the math on your $4.5 trillion. Divide it by 15 - 20.

    Let's add in no 9/11. NO $2 TRILLION Iraq war. No MONSTER HOMELAND SECURITY AGENCY. Stop right there you've just realized your $4.5 TRILLION S A V I N G S and more. We could've bought every driver an electric car to utilize the new green energy.


    PLUS, WE would own all the green and renewable energy and we would be selling or leasing it to world.

    What a fucking stupid ignorant post!




    Last edited by Centerleftfl; 07-10-2019 at 09:23 AM.
    WK1 3/28-/4 _Cases 301k--Dead 18.1k Lethality 2.72%
    WK2 4/5-/13 _Cases 555k--Dead 22.1K Lethality 3.9%
    WK3 4/20-/21 Cases 774k -Dead 37.2K Lethality 4.8%
    WK4 4/22-/29 Cases 1M --Dead 58.8K Lethality 5.9%
    WK5 5/1-/8__ Cases 1.3M -Dead 75.7K Lethality 6.1%
    WK6 5/9-16__Cases 1.4M --Dead 85.8K Lethality 6.1%
    WK7 5/17-24_Cases 1.7M - Dead 97.6K Lethality 5.9%
    WK8 5/28 Cases 1.7M - DEAD 101.2K - Same

  5. The Following User Groans At Centerleftfl For This Awful Post:

    cancel2 2022 (07-10-2019)

  6. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Centerleftfl View Post
    Let's just for the helluva assume had the technology NOT BE THWARTED, fought, resisted against, lied about, lobbied against and data MANIPULATED and WE'LL JUST say for the LAST 15 - 20 YEARS where would we be? (And this could have started well before that!) Do the math on your $4.5 trillion. Divide it by 15 - 20.

    Let's add in no 9/11. NO $2 TRILLION Iraq war. No MONSTER HOMELAND SECURITY AGENCY. Stop right there you've just realized your $4.5 TRILLION S A V I N G S and more. We could've bought every driver an electric car to utilize the new green energy.


    PLUS, WE would own all the green and renewable energy and we would be selling or leasing it to world.

    What a fucking stupid ignorant post!




    The technology wasn't available 20 years ago ffs, it isn't really available now. That money would be far better spent on 4th generation nuclear like the Russians, Indians and Chinese are doing. At least some prominent environmentalists like Michael Shellenburger have seen the light, you're just an ignorant peasant!!

    https://quillette.com/2019/02/27/why...ve-the-planet/
    Last edited by cancel2 2022; 07-10-2019 at 07:25 AM.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to cancel2 2022 For This Post:

    anatta (07-10-2019)

  8. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Prairieville
    Posts
    27,356
    Thanks
    2,896
    Thanked 10,626 Times in 7,127 Posts
    Groans
    331
    Groaned 2,985 Times in 2,707 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Centerleftfl View Post
    Let's just for the helluva assume had the technology NOT BE THWARTED, fought, resisted against, lied about, lobbied against and data MANIPULATED and WE'LL JUST say for the LAST 15 - 20 YEARS where would we be? (And this could have started well before that!) Do the math on your $4.5 trillion. Divide it by 15 - 20.

    Let's add in no 9/11. NO $2 TRILLION Iraq war. No MONSTER HOMELAND SECURITY AGENCY. Stop right there you've just realized your $4.5 TRILLION S A V I N G S and more. We could've bought every driver an electric car to utilize the new green energy.


    PLUS, WE would own all the green and renewable energy and we would be selling or leasing it to world.

    What a fucking stupid ignorant post!





    You need to lay off the drugs they're just making you look like a moron

  9. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,304
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,410 Times in 10,039 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Seems reasonable since we just gave the rich and their pet corporations $2T in tax cuts they've only kept for themselves.

    I say we repeal that, raise their taxes, tax their wealth, and use that revenue to finance this transition.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  10. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    14,413
    Thanks
    308
    Thanked 7,511 Times in 4,834 Posts
    Groans
    17
    Groaned 1,798 Times in 1,605 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    It would have been AVAILABLE 15, 20 30 years ago. You know as in the CAPITALIST model, each new discovery invention creates another discovery invention, followed by ECONOMIES of scale.

    WE LOST AT LEAST 25 YEARS!

    Anyone remember CARTER put solar panels on the WH. REAGAN removed them. Just imagine in SOLAR ENERGY had been supported in 1976.

    PS How old are windmills? How old are TURBINE engines?
    WK1 3/28-/4 _Cases 301k--Dead 18.1k Lethality 2.72%
    WK2 4/5-/13 _Cases 555k--Dead 22.1K Lethality 3.9%
    WK3 4/20-/21 Cases 774k -Dead 37.2K Lethality 4.8%
    WK4 4/22-/29 Cases 1M --Dead 58.8K Lethality 5.9%
    WK5 5/1-/8__ Cases 1.3M -Dead 75.7K Lethality 6.1%
    WK6 5/9-16__Cases 1.4M --Dead 85.8K Lethality 6.1%
    WK7 5/17-24_Cases 1.7M - Dead 97.6K Lethality 5.9%
    WK8 5/28 Cases 1.7M - DEAD 101.2K - Same

  11. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,726
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked 3,573 Times in 2,247 Posts
    Groans
    8
    Groaned 161 Times in 153 Posts

    Default

    4.5T? That's it? Sounds worth it.

  12. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    57,638
    Thanks
    563
    Thanked 10,010 Times in 8,569 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 498 Times in 487 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Centerleftfl View Post
    It would have been AVAILABLE 15, 20 30 years ago. You know as in the CAPITALIST model, each new discovery invention creates another discovery invention, followed by ECONOMIES of scale.

    WE LOST AT LEAST 25 YEARS!

    Anyone remember CARTER put solar panels on the WH. REAGAN removed them. Just imagine in SOLAR ENERGY had been supported in 1976.

    PS How old are windmills? How old are TURBINE engines?
    You mean the wind power that Democrats support yet opposed when it was going to be put in places where they lived?

  13. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    57,638
    Thanks
    563
    Thanked 10,010 Times in 8,569 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 498 Times in 487 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Badguy View Post
    4.5T? That's it? Sounds worth it.
    I suggest you and all your fellow tree huggers get to personally donating for it.

    Strange how you support a concept then want others to pay for it.

  14. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,726
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked 3,573 Times in 2,247 Posts
    Groans
    8
    Groaned 161 Times in 153 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CFM View Post
    I suggest you and all your fellow tree huggers get to personally donating for it.

    Strange how you support a concept then want others to pay for it.
    You'll pay.

  15. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    73,391
    Thanks
    101,921
    Thanked 54,771 Times in 33,632 Posts
    Groans
    3,155
    Groaned 5,065 Times in 4,683 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    A small investment for our future!

  16. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    life
    Posts
    52,794
    Thanks
    13,341
    Thanked 22,579 Times in 15,814 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,951 Times in 1,862 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Badguy View Post
    You'll pay.
    any idea how much $4.5 trillion is?
    are we gonna tax the rich (again) to pay for this?

  17. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    life
    Posts
    52,794
    Thanks
    13,341
    Thanked 22,579 Times in 15,814 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,951 Times in 1,862 Posts

    Default

    From a budgetary perspective, the cost is staggering at $35,000 per household – nearly $2,000 per year if assuming a 20-year plan,” it adds.

    The report said the $4.5 trillion figure takes into account everything that would be needed to transition to a completely renewables-powered grid.

    “The price includes building and operating generation facilities, making capacity payments, investing in transmission and distribution infrastructure, delivering customer-facing grid edge technology and more,” it says.
    900 GW of Storage, HVT Requirements at Heart of Costs

    The Wood Mackenzie report focused on several high-price-tag facets of the renewables goal. First, the country will need to produce 900 gigawatts (GW) of storage to make grid stability possible. Considering the current battery capacity available in the entire world, 900 GW would require a massive amount of technological advancement.

    “The inadequacy of the energy storage supply chain is apparent and is compounded by technology gaps,” the report said. “The recent proliferation of smaller, short run lithium ion storage plants fails to deliver the longer duration storage capability critical to balancing seasonal swings in wind energy production or extended resource droughts stemming from major weather events.”

    In addition to the absence of sufficient battery storage, the United States would have to overcome a lack of high-voltage transmission.

    The United States has around 200,000 miles of high-voltage transmission. The RE100 goal would require twice that.

    “If we assume that RE100 requires doubling installed generating capacity, it could theoretically double HVT requirements,” the report noted. “Assuming 200,000 miles of new HVT at an average price of $3.5 million/mile adds $700 billion.”
    Fossil Fuel Companies Will Face “Existential Crisis”

    The report went on to point out that RE100 is only possible through the elimination of fossil fuels. While the shift away from fossil fuels presents an opportunity for investment in subsequent emerging energy economies, it’s a death knell for fossil fuel companies.

    “The price tag may not be the highest hurdle to overcome. Eliminating fossil fuels represents a transformative investment opportunity for stakeholders of the new energy economy,” Wood Mackenzie noted. “But for legacy participants in the energy industry, it also creates an existential crisis. Companies – and in some cases, whole industries – must evolve or perish.”
    https://energypages.com/a-100-u-s-re...lion-price-tag

  18. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    57,638
    Thanks
    563
    Thanked 10,010 Times in 8,569 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 498 Times in 487 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Badguy View Post
    You'll pay.
    That's how I thought you'd want to do things. Support a cause and want someone else to pay so you can take credit for your words.

    Typical left winger. Thinks doing nothing means something.

Similar Threads

  1. EPA Administrator Pruitt Proposes Cost-Benefit Analysis Reform
    By cancel2 2022 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-16-2018, 08:12 AM
  2. Obamacare will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade
    By Cancel 2018. 3 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 100
    Last Post: 03-16-2012, 07:49 PM
  3. The cost of bin Laden: $3 trillion over 15 years
    By Schadenfreude in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-06-2011, 03:38 PM
  4. Iraq war could cost taxpayers $2.7 trillion
    By LadyT in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 06-13-2008, 09:21 AM
  5. why no cost benefit analysis of the iraq war ?
    By uscitizen in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-20-2007, 08:00 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •