All Solar, Et Al, In 12 Years?

[Terrel L. Shields]

Look up 1816 - the year without a summer. Tamora Volcano spewed so much dust (remember its near the equator) in the NE US and Canada, and Europe that it frosted in all 12 months as far south as New England and cattle were fed mackerel in lieu of hay. Krakatoa was in 1883 and was still affecting weather into the 20th century. There were spectacular sunsets and painters painted series of these painting during the next several years.

http://publicdomainreview.org/2012/05/28/the-krakatoa-sunsets/

 

[Meandering]

But how did they grow food?

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

a few root veggies remained but most food had to be from the Midwest where it wasn't so cold, and they ate a lot of fish. Corn and wheat were a complete failure

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

Also, after Krakatoa weather science bloomed as the dust in the air was followed and led to the idea there were high altitude air currents that would take wind from the tropics and circle the northern hemisphere. And it was years after Krakatoa and the San Francisco earthquake (1906) that science begin to understand that the two were related in that they both were created by plate tectonics, where a subducting land mass created the earth pressures which cause earthquakes and volcanos, at the edge of the large continental land masses (plates)

 

[Randolph Kinney]

SACRAMENTO — With President Obama back from a trip to Alaska in which he portrayed the fight against climate change as an urgent international priority, California is showing how hard it can be — even in a state overwhelmingly controlled by Democrats — to get an ambitious carbon reduction bill passed.

The state has been at the forefront of global efforts to battle greenhouse gases, enacting mandates to force sharp reductions in emissions over the next 35 years. Its environmental record was applauded by Mr. Obama last week, and Pope Francis invited Gov. Jerry Brown to discuss the fight against global warming in the Vatican this summer.

But a centerpiece of California’s long-term campaign against emissions — legislation requiring a 50 percent reduction in petroleum use by Jan. 1, 2030 — has set off a fierce battle here, pitting not only a well-financed oil industry against environmentalists, but Democrat against Democrat. The bill easily passed the Senate, but it is faltering in the Assembly because of opposition by moderate Democrats, many representing economically suffering districts in central California. A vote is expected early this coming week.

A defeat would be a setback for Mr. Brown, who has made a battle against global warming a centerpiece of his final years in public life, and for environmentalists who have looked to California to lead the emissions fight at a time of strong skepticism about global warming in Washington. Mr. Obama urged California lawmakers to enact the bill in a recent speech in Las Vegas, signaling the importance he is attaching to the issue in his final years in office.

The environmental fight here comes on the eve of the United Nations climate change conference in Paris, set to take place in the fall. There, Mr. Brown and Kevin de León, the State Senate Democratic leader who led the fight for the bill in his chamber, are planning to outline for an international audience California’s campaign against greenhouse gases. On Wednesday, the Legislature passed and sent to Mr. Brown a measure requiring the state’s public pension funds to divest from coal companies.

“The rest of the world is watching very closely what is happening in California, and I think so far they see a success story,” Mr. de León said. “Our economy has grown — we are adding jobs, and we are reducing our carbon emissions. Therefore it is absolutely crucial that this measure passes, because it will be a big blow to the rest of the states and the whole world if it doesn’t.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/u..._th_20150906&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=50329110

Some democrats who represent the poor realize the poor will pay for the cost of global warming solutions and the smug feelings of the rich.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

Our economy has grown — we are adding jobs, and we are reducing our carbon emissions.... Some democrats who represent the poor realize the poor will pay for the cost of global warming solutions and the smug feelings of the rich.

The rich can afford it. The poor cannot. And if the world isn't on board, merely having the U. S. and Europe "on board" won't put a dent if global warming. And that tiny dimple will be a very expensive one for the poorest people, and they, in turn will need subsidies from the middle class because there isn't enough rich to make a dent in the needs of the poor.
http://www.hudson.org/research/10976-the-liberal-war-on-american-energy-independence

 

[Meandering]

Good article.
Too many rich people in a state, means
no soup for you if you aint rich too.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

New Program Will Support Clean Energy And Efficiency For Low-Income Residents

On Thursday, the federal government and California Governor Jerry Brown announced a new program to resolve one the greatest hurdles for energy efficiency in low income communities: how to pay for it. The Department of Housing and Urban Development, the State of California, and the MacArthur Foundation have partnered together to develop a pilot program that finances energy efficiency and renewable energy to multifamily housing units in California using the Property Assessed Clean Energy, or PACE, program.

“This partnership will open up a whole new channel for private capital to come in and deliver energy savings to a population that would benefit enormously, without any new expenditure of public funds required,” said Ben Healey, of the Connecticut Green Bank.

PACE is not a new idea. It began as a pilot project in Berkeley in 2007, and more than half of U.S. states and the District of Columbia had adopted PACE legislation as of April 2013. PACE programs offer financing for energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements to homes but, unlike a regular bank loan tied to the borrower, a PACE loan is tied to the property. Homeowners repay the loan as a lien on their property taxes.

Doing it this way alleviates homeowner concerns about the upfront costs of energy efficiency. It also ensures that homeowners will see a return on those costs through energy savings regardless of how long they live in their home. Since lower-income households spend a disproportionate amount of income on energy bills, HUD’s multifamily PACE program could result in greater financial stability for low-income residents while simultaneously reducing energy-related carbon pollution and its associated health impacts.

These structures are already working in states like Connecticut that have installed solar panels and cut utility bills for dozens of the state’s affordable housing units.

“In Connecticut, together with the CT Housing Finance Authority, we are currently using PACE-secured solar Power Purchase Agreements to finance solar installations, with no money down, on dozens of affordable multifamily housing properties across the state,” Healey continued. “These PPAs can offer electric savings of up to 50%, freeing up cash for property owners to reinvest in deferred maintenance, address health and safety concerns, and otherwise upgrade their properties.”

Despite the strong state support for PACE, efforts to expand the program hit a stumbling block in 2010 when the Federal Housing and Finance Administration called for a “pause” to PACE programs attached to homes financed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks. The FHFA cited concerns that PACE loans often took repayment priority over home mortgages in cases of default. This action chilled residential PACE programs, but commercial PACE programs continue. Commercial property-assessed clean energy (PACE) financed projects climbed to nearly $60 million in 2013.

Thursday’s announcement may help address those FHFA concerns. As part of the initiative, the Department of Energy will study whether PACE delivers its intended benefits, and HUD will issue guidance clarifying how the agency can approve PACE programs in HUD-assisted and HUD-insured housing in California. With this pilot program, the Administration is taking affirmative steps to make energy efficiency and renewable energy a more accessible option for low-income households.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...dable-housing-keeping-pace-with-clean-energy/

Taxpayer either way is going to be on the hook in case of default. But, it is a backdoor way to subsidize the poor and the solar industry in the name of global warming.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Don't Count Out Electron Laundering

Electron laundering, the process of selling expensive “green” electrons into the grid and then backfilling them with “dirty” electrons, isn’t just limited to Canada. Oregon has installed hundreds of wind turbines, but less than a quarter of the wind-generated electricity is used in the state, with most of it being sold to California. In fact, coal accounts for more than a third of Oregon’s electricity needs while wind only provides 5 percent.

California claims that coal only delivered 6 percent of its electricity mix in 2014. Why such a wide disparity between adjacent states? As two Oregonians note, coal power is cheap and reliable while California’s legislatively-mandated renewable energy targets force it to buy all the renewable energy it can get.

In other words, both British Columbia and Oregon, acting as California’s energy colonies, can buy low and sell high, allowing California to boost its self-esteem while they pocket a nice profit.

Of course, it defeats the purpose of trying to save the world if the clean electrons California buys are replaced with dirty ones.

California’s mandated drive for more and more renewable power explains why in June of this year, Golden State average electricity costs for end-users was 16.2 cents per kWh, 52 percent higher than the national average of 10.64 cents per kWh and the third-highest in the 48-contiguous states.

In the first quarter of 2015, California had the nation’s third-highest cost of living, behind number one Hawaii and number two, D.C., with an overall index of 138.2, meaning that housing, food, and other goods and services cost 38.2 percent more in California than in the rest of the nation. Higher utilities costs were a large part of this equation. Residential customers paid an average of 17.21 cents per kWh in California vs. 12.93 nationwide, a 33 percent premium over the national average to keep the lights and air conditioner running.

In 2012, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated that those making between $15,000 and $19,999 spent about 11 percent of their budget on utilities, with electricity making the bulk of that in much of California. And, even with most poor Californians eligible for a 20 percent electricity discount through the California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE) program, the poor still spend at least 10 percent more for their subsidized electricity than the national average—about $100 more per year depending on where they live.

California’s higher costs for electricity and other basic needs are one of the key drivers of another area in which California leads the nation: the largest percentage of its residents in poverty. According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure, a more comprehensive gauge that accounts for a wider array of government benefits as well as the cost of housing from state-to-state, some 23.4 percent of Californians live in poverty, proportionately 47 percent more than in the U.S. or in Texas, the second-largest state.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckde...an-canadian-electron-laundering-and-the-poor/

Taxpayer subsidies and giveaways to the poor for ever increasing cost of electricity means more people will join the ranks of the poor.

 

[Meandering]

Yingli Fights to Survive as Another Solar King Dethroned by Debt

Yingli Green Energy Holding Co., which was until last year the world’s biggest panel company by shipments. It’s lost two-thirds of its market value in 2015 and in May acknowledged “substantial doubt” about whether it can stay afloat amid a pile of debt. The Baoding, China-based manufacturer will report second-quarter results Tuesday and analysts are expecting a 16th straight loss.

It’s a familiar story in the solar business. Yingli followed Suntech Power Holdings Co., another Chinese panelmaker that held, and lost the top spot in the industry. Before that, Germany’s Q-Cells SE held the No. 1 position. Both went bankrupt, felled by debt and high costs in an industry where prices have plunged.

The panel-maker had a market value of $132 million Friday. It had about $398 million in cash and owed $2.31 billion in long- and short-term debt as of March 31, according to its first-quarter report. In August, it said profit margins will be 7 percent to 8 percent for the second quarter, down by half from the prior period, due to higher production costs, declining prices and low factory-utilization rates.

One of those investments was the 2009 purchase of Cyber Power Group Ltd. for $77.6 million, a company that makes polysilicon, the main raw material in solar cells. Yingli’s founder and Chief Executive Officer Miao Liansheng invested another $270 million to upgrade the plant. The project made more sense then, when the material sold for $400 a kilogram; today, it can be bought for less than $20, said Angelo Zino, an S&P Capital IQ analyst in New York.

Yingli is facing a 1 billion-yuan ($157 million) bond payment in October, and has a 1.4 billion-yuan note that matures seven months later. In May, the company said that its “substantial indebtedness and net loss” could affect its ability to meet its obligations. Its American depositary receipts slumped a record 37 percent the next trading day, and in an e-mailed statement the company said it was confident it could make its payments.

It may take a debt reorganization for the company to survive, said Sanganeria.

With debt far exceeding the company’s market capitalization, “what value do you have?” he asked. “Relatively speaking, nothing. The company is owned by the debt holders, pretty much. At some point, they will have to decide what to do with it.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...rvive-as-another-solar-king-dethroned-by-debt

.