The U.S. Is Smashing Its Clean Energy Forecasts

[onthebottom]

Economics and the free market trumps global agreements and posing..... fracking saving the planet!

https://www.statista.com/chart/11365/the-us-is-smashing-its-clean-energy-targets/

The U.S. Is Smashing Its Clean Energy Forecasts

by Martin Armstrong, Oct 5, 2017
In a February 2007 report, the United States Department of Energy made thirty-year predictions for the country's energy usage and production. As our infographic shows, using data from the non-profit international environmental pressure group Natural Resources Defense Council, these forecasts have so far been smashed.

Actual CO2 emissions in 2016 have undercut the 2006 predictions by 24 percent. In fact, energy consumption in total was also 17 percent lower than expected. In terms of the energy mix, power generated from coal was 45 percent beneath the forecast while clean(er) alternatives natural gas and wind/solar power saw overshoots of 79 and 383 percent, respectively.

Renewable energy infrastructure is also expanding at a much faster rate than was thought ten years ago. 2006's prediction for installed solar was a massive 4,813 percent shy of the 2016 reality. The U.S now also has installed wind capacity of 82 gigawatts, 361 percent more than had been hoped for.

 

[Frankfooter]

The joke really is on Trump, he's trying to push coal when its now just not economical any more.
Its so bad he's trying to fix the system, rigging it for coal supplies at the expense of the consumer.

 

[oldjones]

Actually it's the global government focus that got the fracking, turbines and solar stuff into gear. If economics and free markets were all it took, the governments wouldn't have had anything to have all those conferences and agreements about. But when possible laws and real regulations are in the news everyday even the biggest slowest businesses get the picture.

There's no single right way to skin a cat.

 

[onthebottom]

Actually it's the global government focus that got the fracking, turbines and solar stuff into gear. If economics and free markets were all it took, the governments wouldn't have had anything to have all those conferences and agreements about. But when possible laws and real regulations are in the news everyday even the biggest slowest businesses get the picture.

There's no single right way to skin a cat.

That’s some imaginary thinking.

While the left flew around the country whining about fracking the energy industry delivered the tree hugger result for economic reasons. Lower energy usage at half the cost of 2014 with lower CO2 output - it’s a clean sweep for capitalism.

A side note, the days of Canada’s dirty oil may be short lived.

 

[oldjones]

That’s some imaginary thinking.

While the left flew around the country whining about fracking the energy industry delivered the tree hugger result for economic reasons. Lower energy usage at half the cost of 2014 with lower CO2 output - it’s a clean sweep for capitalism.

A side note, the days of Canada’s dirty oil may be short lived.

On the side note, I certainly hope so. It'll still be there to be mined when the economic returns justify doing it. And as with fracking, when the various ways people force reluctant businesses to behave responsibly can ensure the benefits won't be outweighed by the destruction. Of course that's still an unknown with fracking.

Gotta ask: If that tree-hugger result was only delivered for economic reasons, what made the energy industry so resistant, and slow to see the profit? Sniffing too much of their own product?

Or is that what you've been doing while they've been reading the writing on the wall you still can't see? Maybe if you stopped fighting reality and realized everyone sees only a small piece of it, you might get some of the message sooner.

 

[onthebottom]

On the side note, I certainly hope so. It'll still be there to be mined when the economic returns justify doing it. And as with fracking, when the various ways people force reluctant businesses to behave responsibly can ensure the benefits won't be outweighed by the destruction. Of course that's still an unknown with fracking.

Gotta ask: If that tree-hugger result was only delivered for economic reasons, what made the energy industry so resistant, and slow to see the profit? Sniffing too much of their own product?

Or is that what you've been doing while they've been reading the writing on the wall you still can't see? Maybe if you stopped fighting reality and realized everyone sees only a small piece of it, you might get some of the message sooner.

Simple, the energy industry didn’t want to be forced into some artificial policy position. A much better question is, why have environmentalists been so anti-fracking when it’s had the biggest positive impact on global warming of any transformation.

Can’t speak to your third paragraph, you may have gotten into so good weed.

 

[oldjones]

Simple, the energy industry didn’t want to be forced into some artificial policy position. A much better question is, why have environmentalists been so anti-fracking when it’s had the biggest positive impact on global warming of any transformation.

Can’t speak to your third paragraph, you may have gotten into so good weed.

If you think fracking has no environmental costs or downsides — earth tremors and collapses being the most obvious — then I think you should share what you've been smoking with your business buddies.

Are you seriously advancing the position these canny profiteers whose business acumen is all that's saved us from a world without pumpable energy waited out the entire last century before they started fracking because they "…didn’t want to be forced into some artificial policy position"? Doesn't sound at all capitalist to me.

Even if you can't, some of them clearly saw the dollar signs on the wall, as dirty conventional oil dried up and cleaner natural-gas fitted neatly into those policy decisions that made fracking more profitable than drilling.

What does sound very capitalist is extracting immediate profits, while ignoring and concealing longer-term costs like clean-up and pollution, if they can be passed on to the environment and the general population. There's no evidence today's frackers are any more responsible or less capitalist than yesterdays mining, logging and well-drilling ones. But to-days world is a bit more crowded and there's a sight more experience in the more numerous environmentalists in it.

 

[onthebottom]

If you think fracking has no environmental costs or downsides — earth tremors and collapses being the most obvious — then I think you should share what you've been smoking with your business buddies.

Are you seriously advancing the position these canny profiteers whose business acumen is all that's saved us from a world without pumpable energy waited out the entire last century before they started fracking because they "…didn’t want to be forced into some artificial policy position"? Doesn't sound at all capitalist to me.

Even if you can't, some of them clearly saw the dollar signs on the wall, as dirty conventional oil dried up and cleaner natural-gas fitted neatly into those policy decisions that made fracking more profitable than drilling.

What does sound very capitalist is extracting immediate profits, while ignoring and concealing longer-term costs like clean-up and pollution, if they can be passed on to the environment and the general population. There's no evidence today's frackers are any more responsible or less capitalist than yesterdays mining, logging and well-drilling ones. But to-days world is a bit more crowded and there's a sight more experience in the more numerous environmentalists in it.

I can’t decide if you are being purposely dense or not?

Innovation, in the form of fracking, has delivered cheaper and cleaner energy. It didn’t require subsidies, regulations or presidential imperial decrees. It’s impact on climate change far out strips that of renewables (see data) and any silly international agreement.

 

[Frankfooter]

I can’t decide if you are being purposely dense or not?

Innovation, in the form of fracking, has delivered cheaper and cleaner energy. It didn’t require subsidies, regulations or presidential imperial decrees. It’s impact on climate change far out strips that of renewables (see data) and any silly international agreement.

Fracking is more expensive and dirtier, the only reason they are doing it now is because all the easy wells have been taken care of. Now its deep sea and fracking left, none of which are cheap. That's why Saudi Arabia is flooding the market, to put economic pressure on the US with its higher cost oil then their existing wells.

 

[oldjones]

I can’t decide if you are being purposely dense or not?

Innovation, in the form of fracking, has delivered cheaper and cleaner energy. It didn’t require subsidies, regulations or presidential imperial decrees. It’s impact on climate change far out strips that of renewables (see data) and any silly international agreement.

Ah! This time you left out the Hooray for Capitalism Saving the World! junk that got in the way of that message, somewhat over-simplified as it is.

Of course the things that encouraged that innovation — which just never seemed to get innovated until they came along — were all that international agreement, renewables eating their lunch, climate change sort of things that altered the potential profit landscape. Heck, you wouldn't even have numbers to compare, or be moved to crow about them but for that stuff.

And of course pumping the gas into an existing large-scale infrastructure would have larger impact on climate change than renewables that have yet to be built, but they produce their energy without the low but constant carbon of natural gas. And as your article's data shows, they're coming up fast in number, as well as doing it better.

But your frackers are making a contribution too. Since you're watching, do keep an eye on whether they're better at cleaning up after themselves the earlier lot of mineral extractors and landscape strippers.

 

[nottyboi]

I wonder if the 2007 report took into account LED lighting. Its really been quite an stunning revolution, less then 10% of the power of incandescent lights, and massive adoption. I have very few of them in my house, the microwave lights, oven light and fridge light maybe, that is about it. LED lights then start to reduce AC consumption in the summer, so ever watt saved lighting results in a watt saved in AC...so savings really start to become HUGE....

 

[HungSowel]

Fracking as much damage it does it's immediate environment is kept local, by that I mean if the US wants to frack the grand canyon; it is their business. No payouts are given to dictators, no weapons are given in exchange, no bombs need to go off in other countries. I put terrorism as a more legitimate threat than global warming and as such, the US should frack away, Canada should frack too and not use that nasty tar sands oil.

 

[onthebottom]

Fracking is more expensive and dirtier, the only reason they are doing it now is because all the easy wells have been taken care of. Now its deep sea and fracking left, none of which are cheap. That's why Saudi Arabia is flooding the market, to put economic pressure on the US with its higher cost oil then their existing wells.

Read the news, SA has been trying to constrain oil from OPEC and Russia to drive out fracking, that strategy has failed and has caused fracking companies to cut expenses and get more efficient. They have effectively put a cap on oil prices.

 

[onthebottom]

I wonder if the 2007 report took into account LED lighting. Its really been quite an stunning revolution, less then 10% of the power of incandescent lights, and massive adoption. I have very few of them in my house, the microwave lights, oven light and fridge light maybe, that is about it. LED lights then start to reduce AC consumption in the summer, so ever watt saved lighting results in a watt saved in AC...so savings really start to become HUGE....

We have started replacing every light, when it burns out, with an LED. I’d say we are half way through the house (100+ recessed lights) and have replaced all the high usage lights. They also create no heat.

 

[oldjones]

We have started replacing every light, when it burns out, with an LED. I’d say we are half way through the house (100+ recessed lights) and have replaced all the high usage lights. They also create no heat.

Entirely on your own, using the your purchasing power to drive the entire development of the technology without any encouraging inputs from climate science, global warming politics, or the increasingly expensive carbon-component in electricity pricing.

I think the math would say that replacing as many as you can afford as soon as you can will realize the savings and amort the cost faster. What you sunk into those halogen pot lights in the ceiling is gone, and every time you turn them on it's money up the chimney (the one at the Trump Memorial Coal-Fired Generating Plant). But like you, I'm waiting until mine burn out.

Besides I can never remember the Kelvin number that I think looks best. Stupid humans.

 

[nottyboi]

We have started replacing every light, when it burns out, with an LED. I’d say we are half way through the house (100+ recessed lights) and have replaced all the high usage lights. They also create no heat.

Wait for a sale then use the saveonenergy coupons to replace all of them. It becomes pretty cheap....

 

[FAST]

Pretty much all LED, but still prefer high wattage incandescent on a dimmer, for certain areas in the house.

Incandescent create heat in the winter, so pretty much a draw on that.

 

[onthebottom]

Entirely on your own, using the your purchasing power to drive the entire development of the technology without any encouraging inputs from climate science, global warming politics, or the increasingly expensive carbon-component in electricity pricing.

I think the math would say that replacing as many as you can afford as soon as you can will realize the savings and amort the cost faster. What you sunk into those halogen pot lights in the ceiling is gone, and every time you turn them on it's money up the chimney (the one at the Trump Memorial Coal-Fired Generating Plant). But like you, I'm waiting until mine burn out.

Besides I can never remember the Kelvin number that I think looks best. Stupid humans.

Honestly, I like that they don’t create any heat and I’ll probably sell the house before I have to replace them. If you live in the size house I do you can’t pretend you’re saving the planet.

 

[onthebottom]

Wait for a sale then use the saveonenergy coupons to replace all of them. It becomes pretty cheap....

I buy them when Costo puts them on sale. There at least two dozen waiting in a closet for a light to go out.