18 thoughts on “Shale”

  1. Obama could have done so much more to solidify US dominance, but he preferred to give taxpayer dollars to failed green energy ventures rather than make direct revenue by opening up federal leases.

    1. “Obama could have done so much more to solidify US dominance”

      Why would he ever do that? He’s spent his entire term trying to end US dominance.

  2. Rand, I think you’re going to be surprised at what solar and wind do to conventional generating technologies in the next decade or two. Another factor of two reduction in the cost of utility-scale solar will make it unbeatable in many markets.

    For transportation, the problem has been batteries, not source of energy. If we had sufficiently good batteries electric cars would displace chemically fueled ones for most drivers, even with today’s generating mix.

    1. I’ve no doubt there are huge improvements ahead, but it’s crazy (e.g., Diablo Canyon) to be shutting down nukes, and avoiding gas while we wait.

    2. Wind has promise. Solar, not so much, and no improvements in batteries will provide factor improvement in solar. Both have excellent last mile and stationary low power solutions, as seen with solar powered traffic lights. Only wind is offsetting large amounts of fossil fuel driven power generation.

      The US met Kyoto Protocol levels by a combination of the intended reduction in economic output and the increased use of natural gas. Wind and solar would not have gotten us to those levels.

      Money is better spent of the demand side in improved consumer electronics. Homes switching from tube sets to LED lowered energy consumption and improved quality of pictures. Unfortunately, government regulation prolonged the use of CFL bulbs, which are more toxic than incandescent and not as efficient as LED bulbs. Improved batteries help here too.

      1. Solar has enormous promise. The elephant in the room is the aggressive experience curve solar has had (and continues to have). Other technologies must improve at least as fast or eventually be rendered obsolete.

        Utility scale solar has increased by a factor of 30 in the US in the last decade. Currently, it’s providing about 0.5% of US electrical production. At current growth rates, this will increase by another factor of 20 in the next decade, to 10% of production. We are near the point where exponential growth takes the market from negligible to dominant.

        If the levelized cost of solar drops by another factor of two that will make it lower than advanced combined cycle gas in most markets, even without subsidy. Today, with existing incentives, utility solar projects are already being bid at levelized costs unbeatable by other sources.

        1. Today, with existing incentives, utility solar projects are already being bid at levelized costs unbeatable by other sources.

          With the proper incentives, I could make hamster wheels unbeatable by other sources.

        2. The largest wind farm in the US produces 480 kW/acre. The largest solar plant produces 160 kW/acre. The largest NG plant produces 17 mW/acre.

          The exponential growth is mostly land accumulation. The best efficiency in cells is 46%, which means the average person in Colorado (which due to altitude gets a boost in solar energy) would need an acre of land taken up by this best cell, and at 100% efficiency would still need a .5 acre.

          1. Land is an insignificant contributor to the cost of power from any of those sources. For example, farmland in Texas goes for around $2000 per acre. With 50% fill that acre will generate 300kw or more in full sun.

            If solar gets to the point that land value becomes important it will already have slaughtered the competition.

    3. If – and when and NOT BEFORE – solar and wind gives us the same convenience and amount of energy per dollar investment that oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear gives us, at a reasonably, non-subsidized comparable price……….

      come back and talk to us.

      I’ve heard that promise of yours thousands and thousands of times over the past few decades.

      I’ll buy it when I see the goods.

    4. This will always be the deciding factor for wind turbines. Below the cut-in wind velocity, a turbine produces no power at all. Once the wind velocity exceeds cut-in, power output increases exponentially to a maximum level and then tops out. If the wind speed gets too high, they have to take measures to protect the turbine, so output once again is zero.

      Where I live now, the wind speeds at an elevation of 80 meters are barely above the cut-in level. You could install turbines rated at multi-megawatts each and they’re hardly produce anything. Nothing is going to change that. I’ve driven past many wind turbine installations in Colorado and Kansas. It’s quite common to see none of the turbines spinning. Even when they do, unless the wind speed is remarkably steady, you need a variable output base system (typically gas turbines) to make up for the unsteady output from wind turbines. Solar is similar even in very sunny places like much of Colorado. A cloud’s shadow and drop output by a substantial amount, meaning you need something reliable for base power. There’s also this little thing called “night” that works against solar.

      2. I am not a fan of the wind farms because I am a fan of the birds. They take up so much area that is is immensely negative for the birds.

        I was driving through wind farm country the other month, which is also known for its birds of prey, and there were windmills all over and new ones being constructed. There was one falcon trying to ride the wind but there wasn’t anywhere for it to go where there weren’t spinning blades.

        Free energy isn’t really free and it has costs aside from money.

        It is kinda strange that the same people who don’t want wifi or cell service available in forests also want monstrous wind farms all over the countryside. Each position is a war on rural people.

  3. Yet another Neo-Malthusian prediction fails the reality test.

    I also heard some climate alarmists are back to the Ice Age warnings….

Comments are closed.