Stanford University has a new study showing that
while a wind, water and sunlight conversion may result in initial capital cost increases, such as the cost of building renewable energy power plants, these costs would be more than made up for over time by the elimination of fuel costs. The overall switch would reduce California’s end-use power demand by about 44 percent and stabilize energy prices, since fuel costs would be zero, according to the study.http://news.stanford.edu/...
It would also create a net gain, after fossil-fuel and nuclear energy job losses are accounted for, of about 220,000 manufacturing, installation and technology construction and operation jobs. On top of that, the state would reap net earnings from these jobs of about $12 billion annually.
My Bold It takes money to make money Tax Cuts did not create jobs when the economy was good, tax cuts don't create jobs when the economy is bad as we have found out. Deregulation of the banks and housing market gave us the Housing Bubble and the bank bailout, deregulation of the airline industry gave us the joke " How do you make a small fortune investing in the airlines?....start investing with a large fortune.
We need to invest in jobs not just to create make work which is all investing in the defense industry is since we never get any cash from our wars that pays for the cost of our wars.
We need to invest in ideas that will pay us back the money we spent to create jobs PLUS CREATE A PROFIT! Not all profit is direct money in your hands but it still counts as money just what about about profit is so hard to understand for Congress and Banks?
The study states that if California switched to wind, water and sunlight for renewable energy, air pollution-related deaths would decline by about 12,500 annually and the state would save about $103 billion, or about 4.9 percent of the state’s 2012 gross domestic product, in related health costs every year. The study also estimates that resultant emissions decreases would reduce global climate change costs in 2050 – such as coastal erosion and extreme weather damage – by about $48 billion per year.http://news.stanford.edu/...
“I think the most interesting finding is that the plan will reduce social costs related to air pollution and climate change by about $150 billion per year in 2050, and that these savings will pay for all new energy generation in only seven years,”
Do you see anyone making similar claims about Fracking for Natural Gas nope Fracked Gas can't even make a profit unless like last winter we have record cold. Now Obama is trying to fast track the building of Liquid Natural Gas ports even though by the time those ports are built America will likely be a net importer of Natural Gas yet Fracking gets tons of loans from the banks and Green Energy gets crumbs Efficient Allocators of Capital my @ss Parasites trying to keep us dependent because they sell what we depend on.
Thursday 22 May 2014
estimates of US shale oil and gas potential, concluding that "light tight oil production in the USA will peak between 2015 and 2017, followed by a steep decline", while shale gas production would likely peak next year.
that if reserve and production reality are indeed significantly lower than industry forecasts, we could be at risk of an oil shock as early as within the next five years.http://www.theguardian.com/...
Maybe if we hurry we could build a new Liquid Natural Gas port in 5 years just in time
Natural gas-fired power plants accounted for just over 50% of new utility-scale generating capacity added in 2013. Solar provided nearly 22%, a jump up from less than 6% in 2012. Coal provided 11% and wind nearly 8%. Almost half of all capacity added in 2013 was located in California.http://www.theguardian.com/...
Natural gas. Natural gas capacity additions were less than in 2012, as 6,861 MW were added in 2013, compared to 9,210 MW in 2012. The capacity additions came nearly equally from combustion turbine peaker plants, which generally run only during the highest peak-demand hours of the year, and combined-cycle plants, which provide intermediate and baseload power.
All these new Natural Gas plants got financing from the banks notice how much more Natural Gas plants were financed by the banks than Solar and Wind. The banks know that except for this winter Natural Gas has been sold below the Break Even Point needed to make a profit.
California is the State most likely to go 100% Green Power by building all these new Natural Gas Plants the banks and the Power industry hope to eliminate the need for Green Power but once Demand for Fracked Natural Gas exceeds supply they will say we have no choice but to import pricey foreign Natural Gas until we can build Green Power after we pay the power companies to shut down their new Natural Gas power plants.
Since nobody will want to do that since if we don't the power companies and the companies that Frack Natural Gas will default on their loans and destroy the banks Green Power won't be implemented in California as quickly as 2050.
Funny by deregulating the Banks we have made them much more dependent on bank bailouts and we also made us much more dependent on them because now they are to big to fail and they know that, they use that to squeeze money out of us. By deregulating the Banks we have made the banks Parasites and fed them on ourselves.