Real World Event Discussions

Real news, MSM news, and faux news

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Sunday, April 19, 2026 14:49
VIEWED: 7882
PAGE 3 of 8

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Sunday, June 30, 2013 10:35 PM

From Forbes

Quote:
According to a recently released United Nations report, global investment in renewable energy reached a record $257 billion in 2011, a 17 percent increase from the amount invested in 2010. Globally, renewable energy covers approximately 16.7 percent of energy consumption. Of this share, modern technologies such as solar and wind accounted for just 8.2 percent, even less than the 8.5 percent contributed by biomass. By comparison, more than 80 percent of electricity consumed worldwide still comes from fossil fuels.

China was responsible for almost one-fifth of total global investment, spending $52 billion on renewable energy last year. The United States was close behind with investments of $51 billion, as developers sought to benefit from government incentive programs before they expired. Germany, Italy and India rounded out the list of the top five countries.

According to China’s 12th Five-Year Plan for Economic and Social Development (2011-2015), the country will spend $473.1 billion on clean energy investments over the next five years. China’s goal is to have 20 percent of its total energy demand sourced from renewable energy by 2020.

In 2011, solar led the way as far as global investment in renewable energy, with investment surging to $147 billion, a year-on-year increase of 52 percent, due to strong demand for rooftop photovoltaic installations in Germany, Italy, China and Britain. Large-scale solar thermal installations in Spain and the United States also contributed to growth during the year. Wind power investment slipped 12 percent to $84 billion as a result of uncertainty about energy policy in Europe and fewer new installations in China, according to the report.

Despite the substantial investments in solar energy, the industry is in turmoil. A number of large American manufacturers such as Solyndra, Evergreen Solar, SpectraWatt, Solar Millennium and Solon fell victim to price pressure from Chinese rivals that helped to halve the cost of photovoltaic modules in 2011.

Even the survivors are not doing well. Shares of First Solar, Inc. (NASDAQ:FSLR), are selling at their lowest level in five years. The company, which is the leading solar company in the United States, lost $39.5 million last year. In the first quarter of this year, First Solar reported a loss of $449 million after non-recurring expenses of $405 million. The company is due to report second quarter results on August 1.

Not unexpectedly, the industry’s poor fundamentals are provoking trade battles. In May, the U.S. Commerce Department found several Chinese solar-panel companies guilty of dumping and imposed 31 percent tariffs on their products. The action came as a result of a complaint filed by the American subsidiary of Germany’s SolarWorld AG (DE:SWV) and a half-dozen other solar-energy companies that said that the Chinese manufacturers are selling solar panels at below-market prices. The Chinese companies affected are Suntech Power Holdings Co. Ltd. (NYSE:STP) and Trina Solar Limited (NYSE:TSL). SolarWorld has now asked the European Union to investigate claims that Chinese rivals have been selling their products at below market value in Europe as well.

While China pricing has been devastating for American and European solar manufacturers, it has been no less devastating for their Chinese rivals. Suntech, Trina, Yingli Green Energy Holding Co. Ltd. (NYSE:YGE) and Canadian Solar Inc. (NASDAQ:CSIQ), four of China’s largest solar manufacturers, lost a combined $1.7 billion in 2011, and the shares of all four companies are selling at five year lows.

The economics for the solar industry, both globally and in China, have never been worse, and there are no bright spots on the horizon. Clearly, solar investments in the United States and Europe will take a hit in 2012. However, the underlying unprofitability of the industry is in sharp conflict with China’s long-term goal to derive 20 percent of its energy needs from renewable energy sources as well. How can the Chinese companies continue to operate in the face of

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

1KIKI

Sunday, June 30, 2013 10:44 PM

"... China’s long-term goal to derive 20 percent of its energy needs from renewable energy sources as well."

And that's another problem (among many) with Geezer's argument. While it's true that INDIA doesn't have 'clean' energy goals, the same isn't true of China. China's been aggressively pursuing green energy in order to meet renewable energy goals they have publicly adopted. In fact, they put the US to shame, considering the US has no national renewable energy goals at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_renewable_energy_target#United
_States

For sources other than biofuels, The United States carries no mandatory renewable energy targets although they do support the growth of renewable energy industries with subsidies, feed-in tariffs, tax exemptions, and other financial support measures.

KWICKO

Sunday, June 30, 2013 11:04 PM

India's making some moves, too - including things like covering irrigation canals with solar panels, which cuts back on TWO problems at the same time: it creates electricity to run irrigation pumps, sprinklers, etc., AND it helps cut down on evaporative losses from the canals themselves.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

KWICKO

Sunday, June 30, 2013 11:10 PM

Oh, and they're also going ahead with building solar energy plants to help provide power to their COAL MINES.

Yes, you read that right.

“India has an abundance of sunshine and the trend of depletion of fossil fuels is compelling energy planners to examine the feasibility of using renewable sources of energy like solar, wind, and so on.”

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/06/2104601/the-worlds-biggest
-coal-company-is-turning-to-solar-energy-to-lower-its-utility-bill/?mobile=nc

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Sunday, June 30, 2013 11:23 PM

I think its a kind of inverted racist response, that these countries aren't civilised enough to care.

GEEZER

Monday, July 1, 2013 1:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
What I'm hearing is that everything stays essentially the same, but the outcome should change.

No. I'm saying that some things are out of your control, and if they are going to affect you, you need to develop a plan to deal with those effects that you can control.

Quote:

But what if everything DOESN'T stay the same? What if we were to go hell-bent for leather to either reduce climate change, or mitigate the impacts of climate change, or both? What could we do? (Trying to get you to think out of the box, in brainstorming mode. Surely you've been in brainstorming sessions!)

Couple of things.

"What if we were to go hell-bent for leather..."

Which "we" is this? The World? Developed nations? North America? the U.S.? How do you get everyone on board?

Also, on the "hell-bent for leather" theme.

How do you convince the guy in India or China who's just gotten a good enough job and income to afford a car or a scooter or an air conditioner that he (and the several billion Indians and Chinese and Africans and Latin Americans like him) should "go hell-bent for leather" and give this up?

Then again, how do you convince the guy who's just moved to his new house in the Phoenix suburbs that to save energy he should really sell his car and move back to an apartment in the city to cut down on travel miles?

The problem with "What could WE do?" is in believing that the "we" all want what you want, and are willing to give up what they believe they've earned for your agenda.

Tell me you have a plan to convice the guy in India, and the guy in Phoenix, and the billions of other guys like them, that they should give up their cars and A/C for you, and I'll be glad to critique it.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

GEEZER

Monday, July 1, 2013 1:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
So Geezer - do you want to know why I laugh at you? Probably not, but here it is for all to read - because you are so ideologically driven you can't think any other way.

FOR EXAMPLE:

You start out with the argument that EVEN IF the US and Europe were to do EVERYTHING POSSIBLE to slow down (or even eventually reverse) global warming, the emissions from China and India would undo those efforts. You take this as gospel, and expect everyone else to do that as well.

But there's one really enormous, gaping, obvious logical flaw in your argument - you don't know. You've drawn a conclusion on a qualitative assumption when you need to do quantitative analysis. What do I mean by that? What I mean is that if the US and Europe were to do EVERYTHING POSSIBLE - by which I mean technically feasible at the moment * - that one logical possibility is that US and Europe could do SO MUCH that they would at least mitigate the effects of China and India, and perhaps reverse them.

Actually, the first thing you have to do is figure out how you're going to get the U.S. and Europe to do EVERYTHING POSSIBLE. That's the big IF.

Like this:

If you expect the U.S. and Europe to reduce their carbon emissions to the level of Cuba, as you've proposed, you're insane.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

SIGNYM

Monday, July 1, 2013 3:22 PM

Quote:
Actually, the first thing you have to do is figure out how you're going to get the U.S. and Europe to do EVERYTHING POSSIBLE. That's the big IF.

Actually, the first thing you have to do is figure out how you're going to get people to think past what currently exists. You can't have change if you can't think past the present. That bears repeating:

You can't have change if you can't think past the present.

Here, let me give you an example that a right-winger would appreciate: We could have never developed democracy if the FF couldn't think past monarchy which, up until then, was the only form of European government extant, which therefore would have been the predicted model.

So, can you? Think past the present and imagine a different future? I've asked... oh, I dunno... three or four times now. I don't want to jump the gun and start giving you my ideas, I want to see yours. Not looking for a "prediction" but some blue-sky thinking. At the beginning of a brainstorming session, one NEVER rejects ideas for being "impractical", so fire away.

GEEZER

Monday, July 1, 2013 4:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Actually, the first thing you have to do is figure out how you're going to get the U.S. and Europe to do EVERYTHING POSSIBLE. That's the big IF.
Actually, the first thing you have to do is figure out how you're going to get people to think past what currently exists.

And since you apparently think you can convince folks of this - not just a few but the vast majority worldwide that'd be necessary to actually reduce carbon emissions worldwide - let's hear it.

Quote:
Here, let me give you an example that a right-winger would appreciate: We could have never developed democracy if the FF couldn't think past monarchy which, up until then, was the only form of European government extant, which therefore would have been the predicted model.

But people had been thinking of democracy for some time prior to the American Revolution. Even English Common Law gave us the basis for a lot of our push for democracy. The Colonies just happened to hit the sweet spot when England was busy with a global war against France, and didn't have the resources to stop our rebellion.

Then again, look at how well the later French Revolution, supposedly based on the same ideals, turned out.

Quote:
So, can you? Thinks past the present and imagine a different future? I've asked... oh, I dunno... three or four times now. I don't want to jump the gun and start giving you my ideas, I want to see yours. Not looking for a "prediction" but some blue-sky thinking. At the beginning of a brainstorming session, one NEVER rejects ideas for being "impractical", so fire away.

Okay.

Quote:
America, tired of the same old politics and government, overwhelmingly adopts a Libertarian philosophy and the Non-aggression Principle - Libertarians sweep the 2016 elections. We bring the troops home and stop all foreign aid. Government support for insurance of coastal dwellings and those on floodplains goes away. Subsidies for coal go away (yes, there are some http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/13/463874/top-three-ways-that
-american-taxpayers-subsidize-dirty-coal-development/ ).

Embracing the Libertarian philosopy of self-reliance, and the understanding that initiating violence - physical, emotional, or environmental - against others is wrong, individuals strive to reduce their energy footprint and reduce pollution and carbon generation. Entrepeneurs find ways to, for example, capture the methane in cow farts and use it to generate clean energy.

Seeing the success of Americans in breaking free of massive, all-controlling government, people around the world rise up in Libertarian revolutions - recognizing that while one should not initiate violence, it is perfectly appropriate to violence initiated agains oneself.

Now, I don't think this is likely, but I also am not to sure about any other scheme for getting most everyone on the planet to "go hell-for-leather" for reductions in energy usage or carbon emissions reduction.

Why don't you present yours, and we'll see.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

1KIKI

Monday, July 1, 2013 4:39 PM

You're the one who insists that people bring solutions, not problems. Except, apparently, you. WAY TO GO MR HYPOCRITE!