The oil being produced from the Bakken Shale in North Dakota, Montana and Saskatchewan is considered to be high quality “sweet” crude oil that is desirable for refining. It seems to me it is preferable to transport this oil to market in new pipelines as opposed to rail tank car trains. Less likely to have a damaging spill from a new pipeline than from thousands of rail tank cars.

Here’s the question I have for the LA City Council’s decision in favor of the feed-in tarrif program. How much per kwhour will the Dept of Water and Power pay to buy solar power, and how does this compare to the cost of buying more natural gas for our gas-fired plants. The US has the lowest natural gas prices in the world, and this is expected to last for a long time. Gas generated electricity is far cheaper than solar power. The Los Angeles Dept of Water and Power is planning very large rate increases for the millions of users of water and power in the City. With people hurting from the recession and unemployment, the City should be going for the lowest cost power and water. How large a subsidy will the rate payers be forking over to support the solar electric industry which otherwise is completely uneconomic.

the article you cite is from 2007. CERN’s recent results prove the 2007 study was incorrect. We are fortunate that the majority of the American people have educated themselves sufficiently that they no longer accept the human-caused global warming theory. There will be no national carbon tax in the US. The global warming zealots have lost the battle for the hearts and minds of the American people. Nuclear power, coal and natural gas are the future.

There is no real evidence that CO2 emissions from human activity are causing global warming of significance. The hypothesized multiplier effect has not been demonstrated. In contrast there is overwhelming evidence that solar activity drives climate. Look at the correlation over long term between cosmic ray intensity, which is modulated by solar activity, and earth’s temperature — the relationship is quite clear. The sun is becoming less active than it has been for centuries. We are on a trajectory for a repeat of the Dalton minimum or the Maunder minimum which were associated with global cooling and massive crop failures. Please read the evidence.

Let us distinguish between message and message carrier. Disdain for war crime justifier Woo is correct, but it is also the case that Obama exceeds his authority with the Cordray appointment. What does the constitutional mandate for advice and consent of the Senate mean if he can do this? If Obama were not protector of the Wall Street criminals, he could rally the people by advocating senate approval for Cordray as someone who could help fix the problem. As if this could ever happen! This is one more violation of the constitution (Libya war, assassination of citizens) for which he should be impeached. Progressive forces will be unable to create FDR type economic solutions as long as this tool of the oligarchy continues as president.

It is crazy to argue that Buffet’s investment means that the economics of photovoltaic power are compelling. The only reason this project is even being built is because the state in its wisdom is mandating that the public utilities purchase “alternative” power at prices that are many times higher than what the utilities pay for nuclear and natural gas. This is simply a case of the electric ratepayers being compelled to subsidize the return on Buffet’s investment. And one thing we know for sure — we cannot regrow our California industrial base if we are compelled to pay prices for electricity that are multiples of what people in other states and countries are forced to pay. The giant sucking sound from industries fleeing the golden state will continue as long as this public policy nonsense continues.

One more knife in the back for the working men and women of the country. This abomination of a president must be removed from office. He is ruining our country.

I did not mean to offend. I am not wealthy, but I would wager that both of us are wealthy compared to the overwhelming majority of poor people in the world, many millions of whom have no electricity at all.

I guess I thought your comment “More bogus b.s. from the corp-owned rightwing-funded media” was directed at me because you were replying to my comment.

By all means, let the government support R&D to lower the excessively high costs of solar power. But I would argue that long term, the human race has no alternative but to develop advanced fission and ultimately fusion reactors. Even if the efficiency of solar electric power conversion can be dramatically increased, it will always be constrained by the low energy flux density of this energy source. There are a number of advanced nuclear technologies that other countries are developing (pebble bed reactors, the thorium fuel cycle, etc.) which are inherently much safer than pressurized water reactors. It is a shame that the USA has decided to completely turn away from R&D of this sort.

And to go back to the first questions I asked, which no one has addressed, why does the author of this article think that solar will compete with coal in a matter of years? And why does anyone think we can have an industrial civilization based on solar and wind power?

Would you argue that India, China and other populous countries with low per capita incomes should not invest in the construction of new fossil fuel electricity plants? Today this is by far the most cost effective way to deliver electricity to people who need it. Those who would impose carbon taxes on third world economies are advocating a policy that will cause tens of millions of people to suffer. Of course most of those advocating such policies are wealthy first world environmentalists.

I asked about the article’s contention that solar power will be cost competitive with coal in a matter of years… what is the basis for this statement?

And I asked whether we can have a world industrial economy supported by solar power, instead of by nuclear, coal, and gas? Does anyone think this is remotely achievable, and if so, why do you believe this?

This is not a serious question, right? We do not need a US war machine, but the only way the world can support billions of people with decent standards of living is to have an industrial economy. Would you de-industrialize the world economy? This would lead to genocide of billions of people. You cannot be serious.

I do not understand why you say that “solar will be cheaper than coal in a matter of years.” Today solar is far more expensive than either coal or natural gas. Solar-generated electricity has a much lower energy flux density (i.e. watts per square meter, or per dollar of capital invested) than coal or natural gas. The only reason we see any solar installations today (except in the case of small installations that are off the grid) is because of the substantial federal and state tax subsidies. Is there any evidence, or indeed any rational economic and scientific theory, for the notion that we can operate an industrial economy on solar power? On the contrary, one can make a sound economic argument that solar will result in drastically higher energy prices, which in turn will have profound negative effects on the productivity of our economy.

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

I would be the first to advocate the US spend less on hegemony, and instead invest in exporting infrastructure to the third world. Indeed, I believe it is essential that the federal government create and extend credit to promote the export of capital goods and investment in infrastructure here at home. This will put millions to work and advance the real physical productivity of the economy.

The problem with solar is the inherent low energy flux density. Because of this physical reality, even with increasing efficiencies the capital investment per megawatt of capacity will always be high, relative to that required for fossil fuel or nuclear power. Solar energy is best utilized for the production of food and forests, this is much more efficient than converting it directly to electricity in solar cells.

Industrial processes require high energy flux density, and these are best delivered from fossil fuels and nuclear. Because the extent of resources depends on the technology which exploits them, it is a human imperative to continually develop higher density energy technologies which expand the amount of resources available to a nation.

I agree that we should not build nuclear power plants of the same design as used in Fukushima. But there are alternative nuclear designs that are inherently much safer, such as the pebble bed reactor. The thorium fuel cycle which India is pursuing will reduce the volumes of radioactive waste products by orders of magnitude compared to uranium fueled plants. And ultimately, we must harness the power of nuclear fusion if the human race is to survive.

I agree that third world countries should not repeat the mistakes of the west, and these sovereign nations must make their own decisions to advance the general welfare of their peoples.

From a scientific perspective, there is a lawful relationship between standard of living, real physical production of food and economic goods, capital investment per capita, and the flux density of an economy’s energy sources. Indeed, it is only through continual advance of technology that we can overcome the growing scarcity of economic resources to support the people of the world.

What lies by scientists paid by Exxon Mobil are you referring to?

Solar is much more expensive than coal, and if you don’t know that you are uninformed. So you would deny to India, China and Africa the ability to develop their economies with fossil fuels? They are also building next generation nuclear power plants. But we know what is better for them and their people because we are well informed North American environmentalists?

The question is not whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the question is whether increases in CO2 will lead to catastrophic warming through some hypothetical positive feedback mechanism for which there is zero evidence.

And what with the evolution reference? And you persist with your ad hominem attacks.

Restricting the use of fossil fuels on a global basis is not the more cautious approach. There is a desperate need for more electricity generating plants and transportation systems throughout the third world. The lack of electricity and inadequate road transportation causes misery, suffering and death throughout the world.

I do not consider the construction of coal powered power plants in India, China, or Africa to be “excessive exuberance,” rather this is a technological and economic imperative for the betterment of the human condition.
The use of catastrophic CO2 warming theory as a reason to deny fossil fuels to the third world is a radical proposition, not a conservative approach. We know that restricting electricity production or dramatically raising its cost (with inefficient solar and wind schemes) will directly result in misery, hunger and death for many in the third world. The predictions of catastrophic effect from anthropogenic global warming are much more debatable and uncertain.
The world requires massive increases in energy production if ten billion people are to enjoy a good standard of living – from my perspective this is the cautious position.

As we know, science is not predicated on appeals to authority, or about how many scientists believe a theory; it is about how well the theory can make predictions and testable hypotheses that are verifiable. The power of evolution theory is its ability to make hypotheses that have been verified. To cite but a few failures of the theory of anthropogenic global warming, it cannot explain why temperatures were higher in the medieval warm period when CO2 was low; or why temperatures declined from 1940 to 1970 while CO2 increased; or why temperatures have flattened out for the last decade; or why cosmic ray flux is tightly correlated to global temperature in the paleoclimate record. With the theory of anthropogenic global warming there is a real scientific debate, which there is not in the case of evolution vs. creationism.

It is ridiculous for the writer to confound creationism (i.e. denial of evolution) with skepticism about the theory of anthropogenic global warming. The theory of evolution, universally accepted by scientists, is supported by thousands of pieces of evidence and experiments. The theory of anthropogenic global warming is disputed by thousands of scientists; it is based largely on the output of computer simulation models; and its underlying assumptions are challenged by many contrary facts, including both current observations and investigations of the actual record of climate change. I have wondered why believers in global warming often liken skeptics of their theory to creationists and “deniers” (with reference to Holocaust deniers). I have concluded this is because they feel compelled to issue ad hominem attacks rather than deal with the reality that their theories of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming are crumbling. When you feel threatened, go with the ad hominem attack, it is easier than arguing the science.