Semi-Random thoughts on Energy, Derivatives, and Tesla.

Nuclear vs Solar:

Obama is selling Nuclear. This is one of the few issues with which I really think he's screwing up.

The question is, even with more Government support, will the nuclear industry really get off its ass and start building plants? Nuclear energy is all about politics. Very little of it is real. The financiers won't invest in plants unless they can get the Government to take pretty much ALL of the risk.

So, as far as nuclear is concerned, we might get a bill that still won't produce any new plants. It would be good to see this bill if it's posted out there; I haven't looked.

On the other hand, can Obama really sell a MAJOR wealth redistribution Bill using SOLAR ENERGY as the argument? The US CULTURE doesn't support Solar. They think its for calculators. The Culture does support Nuclear, however. They (we) have been taught how SIMPLE and CHEAP nuclear power can be for generations. The fact that the REALITY doesn't end up supporting this (when the cost of the RISK is included) is not well understood by just about everyone (IMO).

So, does Obama Sell Solar and confuse the people (failing to pass a Bill), or does he sell NUCLEAR and move WITH the cultural assumptions in order to get a bill in that will also support Solar and other Renewables / Efficiency?

I don't know, it's a tough decision for alot of people politically, because it involves taking a SH!T-TON of money from a select group of Industries (Carbon Emitters) and giving it to Others. It's massive Government intervention, and people don't like that (even if it's required for their long-term survival, and even if it MIGHT turn out incredibly well).

Don't know.

A thought: Remember, the Solar Industry is tiny relative to total Global Energy Demand. Some talk like the amount of Global subsidy required to create vast demand for Solar Energy Products is some impossible number. What is a dollar, and how many of them are there in the World? There are a SH!T-TONS of SH!T-TONS of them in World. They're tied up in all manner of Derivatives... like a giant cloud of Dollars up in the sky that is able to exist without really affecting life down here on Earth (maybe a light misty rain every now and then). What happens if a Financial Regulation Bill passes that adds just a tiny percentage to the costs of dealing in most derivatives, and makes some derivatives illegal? Money has to go somewhere else. Is there a downpour?

Inflation? Money that doesn't go into a derivative will go somewhere else, where the costs are more well known. Assets, Businesses, Stocks and Options, maybe cars and other Consumer Goods of Particular Value.

When Oil decides to go up (in Dollars) (It Will), then the Solar Short argument is sunk.

Blah blah blah....

Another Thought: Tesla is coming. Tesla rocks. Tesla is American. Tesla is HYPED! There's BIG MONEY that believes in Tesla, and will buy it.

When Tesla comes out, will a new generation of Big Money be born (Overnight)?

When people see people beat the odds, they want to figure out how they did it. In comes Speculation and creative thinking. If money follows thinking, then the boom can come, and it can cross borders at the speed of LIGHT.

Business Risks and Costs of New Nuclear Power

Because I often seem to need this.

It's a great paper on the real costs of Nuclear Energy.

In louisiana...

Louisiana has one of the better Solar Energy incentives. It's 50%, on top of the 30% provided by the Federal Government.

You could buy a 5KW system that originally will cost around $22,000 for a final price of $2000. It'll totally pay off in 5 years, then the energy is free for the life of the equipment (panels are usually warranteed to 25 years).

See: http://www.findsolar.com/index.php?page=rightforme

For my estimation above, I took the average power used per year (American Residential Rough) of 8000 kWh, converted to power used per month (666 kWh), selected "other" utility, zip code = 70822, and Electricity Offset = 50%.

Spread the word. Movement on these incentives will be beneficial to the local Economy, and Residents.

RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION STUDY.

Following my first Stimulus Post, here's one that's short and sweet. From the Stimulus Package. I'm presently in a class on "ITIL" which is a set of "Best Practices" for IT and Business. One of the basic tenents is "You can't manage what you can't measure." Well, here we see direction for the Energy Department to get some data on the real system that's out there. From this will be found Natural Priorities based on measured results, rather than on Politically Motivated Claims.

I like.

______________


SEC. 7005. RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION STUDY.

In completing the 2009 National Electric Transmission Congestion Study, the Secretary of Energy shall include—

(1) an analysis of the significant potential sources of renewable energy that are constrained in accessing appropriate market areas by lack of adequate transmission capacity;
(2) an analysis of the reasons for failure to develop the adequate transmission capacity; 20
(3) recommendations for achieving adequate transmission capacity;
(4) an analysis of the extent to which legal challenges filed at the State and Federal level are delaying the construction of transmission necessary to access renewable energy; and
(5) an explanation of assumptions and projections made in the Study, including—

(A) assumptions and projections relating to energy efficiency improvements in each load center;
(B) assumptions and projections regarding the location and type of projected new generation capacity; and 10
(C) assumptions and projections regarding projected deployment of distributed generation infrastructure.

Stimulus Bill - First Look - State Energy Grants.

There's alot to digest for Alt-Energy in this Stimulus Package. I looked it up and did some searching around. There are an incredible number of references, and I'm no Lawyer. I've decided that I'll take it a section at a time, and pull together references and resources as I find them. Skipping to the very end, leads me to the first section that I'm going to look at, or, SEC. 7006. ADDITIONAL STATE ENERGY GRANTS. At first look, I think I'd describe this as saying that if the State assures that they will move on setting the standards described in (1),(2), and (3), then they are eligible for direct grants by the Department of Energy for Renewable and Conservation Projects.

My interpretation of (1),(2), and (3) runs along the lines of "Decouple" the Utilities as has been done in California, Set Building Codes and other Standards, and prioritize Renewables and Conservation projects.

Sounds good to me!

My plan is to work on a letter to write to my State Congresspeople and Governor, to request that they begin this process of setting standards, and prepare to take full advantage of these Funds. In particular, I'd like to motivate people in the Southern States to start this process. These states are too often ignored, and yet they have excellent Solar Potential. Many are also Coal States, and so will require extra efforts to move towards Solar.


SEC. 7006. ADDITIONAL STATE ENERGY GRANTS


This section refers back to the earlier content of the Bill described as "paragraph (6) under the heading ‘‘Department of Energy—Energy Programs—Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy’’ in title V of division A of this Act."


Here's the referred-to section.

(6) $3,400,000,000 shall be for the State Energy Program authorized under part D of title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act ((42 U.S.C. 6321).


Here's the referred-from section.

SEC. 7006. ADDITIONAL STATE ENERGY GRANTS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Amounts appropriated in paragraph (6) under the heading ‘‘Department of Energy—Energy Programs—Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy’’ in title V of division A of this Act shall be available to the Secretary of Energy for making additional grants under part D of title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6321 et seq.). The Secretary shall make grants under this section in excess of the base allocation established for a State under regulations issued pursuant to the authorization provided in section 365(f) of such Act only if the governor of the recipient State notifies the Secretary of Energy that the governor will seek, to the extent of his or her authority, to ensure that each of the following will occur:

(1) The applicable State regulatory authority will implement the following regulatory policies for each electric and gas utility with respect to which the State regulatory authority has ratemaking authority:

(A) Policies that ensure that a utility’s recovery of prudent fixed costs of service is timely and independent of its retail sales, without in the process shifting prudent costs from variable to fixed charges. This cost shifting constraint shall not apply to rate designs adopted prior to the date of enactment of this Act.
(B) Cost recovery for prudent investments by utilities in energy efficiency.
(C) An earnings opportunity for utilities associated with cost-effective energy efficiency savings.

(2) The State, or the applicable units of local government that have authority to adopt building codes, will implement the following:

(A) A building energy code (or codes) for residential buildings that meets or exceeds the most recently published International Energy Conservation Code, or achieves equivalent or greater energy savings.
(B) A building energy code (or codes) for commercial buildings throughout the State that meets or exceeds the ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2007, or achieves equivalent or greater energy savings.
(C) A plan for the jurisdiction achieving compliance with the building energy code or codes described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) within 8 years of the date of enactment of this Act in at least 90 percent of new and renovated residential and commercial building space. Such plan shall include active training and enforcement programs and measurement of the rate of compliance each year.

(3) The State will to the extent practicable prioritize the grants toward funding energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, including—

(A) the expansion of existing energy efficiency programs approved by the State or the appropriate regulatory authority, including energy efficiency retrofits of buildings and industrial facilities, that are funded—
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 22:48 Jan 23, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00645 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\TEMP\HR1.XML HOLCPC

(i) by the State; or
(ii) through rates under the oversight of the applicable regulatory authority, to the extent applicable;

(B) the expansion of existing programs, approved by the State or the appropriate regulatory authority, to support renewable energy projects and deployment activities, including programs operated by entities which have the authority and capability to manage and distribute grants, loans, performance incentives, and other forms of financial assistance; and
(C) cooperation and joint activities between States to advance more efficient and effective use of this funding to support the priorities described in this paragraph.

(b) STATE MATCH.—The State cost share requirement under the item relating to ‘‘DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; energy conservation’’ in title II of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1985 (42 U.S.C. 6323a; 98 Stat. 1861) shall not apply to assistance provided under this section.
(c) EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES.—No limitation on the percentage of funding that may be used for the purchase and installation of equipment and materials for energy efficiency measures under grants provided under part D of title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6321 et seq.) shall apply to assistance provided under this section.

SEC. 7007. INAPPLICABILITY OF LIMITATION.

The limitations in section 399A(f)(2), (3), and (4) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6371h-1(f)(2), (3), and (4)) shall not apply to grants funded with appropriations provided by this Act, except that such grant funds shall be available for not more than an amount equal to 80 percent of the costs of the project for which the grant is provided.



Followed by RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION STUDY.

Egolf (New Mexico) proposes tax districts for solar loans

Great Program!

The Senate Bill, Not Yet Passed.

One source says that they pulled $5 Billion or so (most in planned loan guarantees).

There are Billions left in the Bill, though.

Video - Obama on Climate Change and Energy.

A Letter to my Representative - 11/10/08

Dear Representative XXX,

I'd simply like to voice my support for the replacement of Dingell, on Energy and Commerce, by Henry Waxman.

I'll say that I do not strongly dislike John Dingell, from what I've seen of him, but I do strongly support Waxman's consistant demonstrations of willingness to battle for what is important. Dingell is too close to US Auto Manufacturing Behemoths, and has not shown that he has any ability to stand up to those Lobbies. By doing so, he has abetted their present state of finance. Example: when US Auto Manufacturers wanted to avoid improved CAFE standards, Dingell has been their ally, and yet, modernized standards would have been exactly the incentive that our Domestic Manufacturers could have used to support not only the production of efficient vehicles for domestic use, but also to produce vehicles that would stand a greater chance of being in demand outside of the US, where people don't have money to throw into their gas tanks like Americans have had.

So, yes, I think that an independent fighter would be of great value in this environment of great change. We need to help our Auto Industry, but not by simply throwing cash at them, at the whim of their lobbies. We need new standards and incentives to empower and to direct our manufacturers in a sustainable direction, and we need leadership to back it up in Congress. Bailing out the companies, and then supporting their Lobbies in defense of the status quo, is exactly what we can't afford to do.

Thanks,
D P

Election Eve Thoughts - 11/3/08.

Obviously this election is critical in many ways, but the direction of Future Energy Policy is at the top of the list.

In the last few months we've seen Billions of Dollars come out of stock holdings of Exxon and other Big Oil Companies. We've seen literally Trillions of Dollars get pulled out of the markets as a whole, as fear of losses AND uncertainty in US policy direction has weighed on Investors' sense of security. This has been in addition to, and in part, caused by, massive losses and fear of losses in the Derivatives Markets, which will likely continue.

On the other hand, while Trillions of Dollars have been pulled out of the Stock Market, rather alot of it has been converted to various forms of Cash and Bonds. The money doesn't want to stay in these forms, it wants a place to grow. Without direction from the top, though, there has been no safe place to park this money; no safe place, at least, in which long term growth has appeared likely no matter who would take the Presidency.

Across the Globe, Governments and Central Banks have been dumping money on the immediate problems; to try to cover losses; and to try to stop the selling; but what is missing is an overall plan to stabilize housing prices, and get Americans (and Europeans, and Asians) back to productive and sustainable work. Obama has a plan in the US to do this through middle-class tax cuts, infrastructure / energy investment, and other common sense measures such as extension of unemployment insurance. The goal is to help keep as many people as possible in their homes while they find a way to adapt to the changing Economy, as well as to provide an overall stimulus for smart growth. In addition, an Obama Presidency will likely bring some confidence to Investors around the World that the US Markets will be regulated, open, and fair to all investors. The long term Naked Shorting of stocks is an example of a reason for Foreign Investors to be wary of investing in US Securities, or of offering their shares on US Exchanges. We've recently seen the shinking of the Naked Short Threshold List down to a very few companies, and in fact, LDK has fallen off. Now we just need a President who will assure that these regulations are enforced.


Overall market conditions aside, this election will mark a turningpoint in the direction taken in US Energy Policy. Though the immediate need for Fossil Energy will be unchanged no matter who wins, the future under Obama will be clear, and it will be green. The Markets must move to reflect this once the decision is made.

Under McCain, for instance, you'd want to be invested in Fossils and Nuclear. The fact that McCain has paid lip service to Renewables does not counter his history of inaction, nor his active opposition to these technologies. His prioirities as President have been quite clearly demonstrated by his Campaign Activities. A great symbol of the McCain Camp's Antipathy towards renewables is Sarah Palin's recent visit to a US Solar Manufacturer, and her entirely inappropriate and uninformed littany of sales pitches for Coal, Nuclear, and "Drill, Baby, Drill." The term "Solar" was used twice.

Obama represents a sharp departure from this position, and he's stressed over and over that Energy would be his TOP Priority, and at the top of this list will be investment in a "Smart Grid," which will modernize the US Power Grid. The modernized Grid will provide High Efficiency transport of Electricity across the Nation, irrespective of start and end points. This is critical to supporting a Decentralized Power Production Infrastructure, such as we will see with the implementation Green Energy Production. For instance, if T Boone Pickens wants to install a Billion Dollars worth of Wind Turbines, then Obama would let him do it, and would make sure that when Pickens sets up a farm, he'll have access to Electricity Markets all across the US, without the limits imposed by todays outdated grid. Simultaneously, Obama supports moves to get as many cars off of gas as soon as possible. The end result of this will be lower demand for gas and oil, and higher demand for electricity.


Is it any wonder that big money has left the market, and stayed on the sidelines? Who's going to bet Billions of Dollars that a black man would become President of the United States? And then again, who's going to bet their Billions on a 72 year old man backed up by an(other) Incompetent Dominionist? I think we know the answer. Nobody is making either bet, but they've got to be getting edgy.


The big decision is tomorrow, and the markets will respond appropriately to whatever certainty follows. I can't wait!

Al Gore speaking today on Energy...

Here's the Youtube.

GE Energy - Threatens to Leave America if no Renewable Support.

“If the U.S.government is not going to be reliable and predictable [on clean-energy policy], we’ll go to Germany and China,”

- John Krenecki, head of GE Energy


'The head of GE Energy, the conglomerate’s unit that makes everything from wind turbines to nuclear reactors, flew down to Washington again today to plead with senators to extend tax credits for renewable energy. The credits, still crucial to making clean energy competitive, are set to expire at the end of the year, despite at least eight tries so far to renew them. That threatens to slam the brakes on two gangbuster years for American wind and solar power.'


http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/09/12/industry-to-congress-renew-the-expiring-clean-energy-credits/?mod=googlenews_wsj



That's right, GE is threatening to move their fastest growing Division OUT OF THE UNITED STATES, because of the expiration at the END OF THIS YEAR of the existing tax credits for Renewable Energy.


Congressional Democrats have tried EIGHT TIMES to get the credits extended, but the President and Lockstep Republicans have blocked every attempt. Why have they blocked it? Because they Refuse to PAY FOR IT. One of those attempts to extend the Credits was paid for by Deficit Spending, and guess what? It passed the Senated with 80 Votes. In that case, though, Democrats in the House refused to back it, because they are making the hard choice to be fiscally responsible. In another case, a Bill got to the Senate with 59 votes. McCain was in Washington DC and was available to vote, but he did not show up for work, instead he claimed that the issue needed further study. It's outrageous.

Senate Energy "gang" Grows To 20

This is a good compromise, and Obama has already stated that he would support it.

We need this Bill for a host of reasons, from Economic Benefit to National Energy Security Benefits.

It will be interesting to see what McCain says about it as I don't believe he's made any public statements on it.

Credit to Timdo67 of Yahoo for the link!

Biden / Friedman - Meet the Press - Video.

See it Here.


Excellent Interviews.

Biden definately shows his smarts in a way that I hadn't seen before, and Thomas Friedman is a must see if you're looking for the Energy Revolution. He's all over it, and from this interview, he's demonstrating that he's watching the situation carefully. He describes the situation with China well, and is clearly quite inspired.

Spain raises Solar Limit to 450MW for '09 and '10

Spain Raises Cap on Solar Energy in Revision, Confidencial Says

"Sept. 4 (Bloomberg) -- Spain raised the limit on solar energy production to as much 450 megawatts for next year and 2010 in a revision to proposed rules, El Confidencial reported, citing unidentified people in the industry.

Spain's Industry Ministry will cap output at 400 megawatts to 450 megawatts a year, up from a proposal of 300 megawatts, El Confidencial said."


For some Background of the situation in Europe, see this.


Here's a new IBD article on Solar Pricing Estimates


Credit to Hacker4502 and Diaoko of Yahoo for links.

Windfall Taxes on Big Oil.

Obama supports them, as does Palin.

Just a note on Palin's support of Windfall Taxes on Oil Companies, remember that Alaska is a very Socialist State (believe it or not). Some factoids from Wikipedia point out that Alaska has the 5th largest per capita Gross State Product of all the US States, for which Oil and Gas accounted for 80%. There is an "Alaska Permanent Fund" controlled by the State Government which pays out a dividend to all eligible Alaskans, which amounted to $1963.86 in 2000. So, it's pretty easy to keep Alaskans happy, just try to increase Oil Revenues, and thus boost the yearly Socialist Incomes. See.

So, they are both in support of Redistribution of Wealth from Big Oil.

Ok, let's look at this in a completely different way.

Per Google, Exxon alone reported $38.968 Billion in Cash and Cash Equivalents, as of the end of Q2. Other companies include, Shell at $8.990 Billion, Chevron at $8.180 Billion, and BP at $3.593 Billion. This is what they have in CASH and CASH Equivalents. This money ($60 Billion Total in just the four listed Companies) isn't even tied up in Investments. It's what they've got in the sock drawer ready to move immediately as needed.

So yeah, as a bit of an Exxon Watcher, I can tell you that they've been building up this Warchest for quite some time. What are they going to do with it? Well, IMO they are going to invest it in Alternatives, but not yet. They will wait as long as possible before showing their hand to the public.

So, Obama and many others want to put a Windfall Tax on these big Oil companies. What affect would this have on the Investing Choices made by the Managers of this Big Money?

Well, it's entirely possible for Companies like Exxon to DECREASE their overall Profits, and AVOID a Windfall Tax. They'd do this by INVESTING more of that money into a foundation for Future Growth, like in Alternatives.

Sounds great to me. As it stands, they're just sitting around cashing in on the incredibly high prices that we're currently experiencing, and by delaying future production they are directly putting continued upward pressure on those prices, which is very much sapping the strength of the entire Economy.

The Windfall Profits Tax seems like a good way to put Pressure on these Companies to Invest those Profits. They need to decide sooner, rather than later, if they are going to End their Corporate Lives as Oil Companies, or whether they are going to Continue on as Energy Companies.


EDIT: In support of my claim that Palin Supports Oil Taxation, plus an additional thought on the subject:


http://www.adn.com/front/story/442702.html

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008103325_alaskatax07.html


Her plan was to give every Alaskan $1,200 as energy cost relief, based on Oil Windfall Profits Taxes, and increased Oil Tax Increases that she supported as Governor. Geez, I wish my State had Oil.

Here's another weakness of Palin. Any Economics that she concieves of is based on a Socialist State, with a very very simple Economy. It's 80% based on Oil and Gas, and the Population is very very small. Does she understand the impacts of Presidential Decisions on Large metros, when the largest number of people that she's ever had to deal with is the Population of Alaska, which is only 670 Thousand People?

As Governor of Alaska, when has she had to closely deal with any one of the many Industries that make up the American Economy? There are no Auto Manufacturers, Major High Tech Companies, Huge and Troubled Financials; heck there isn't even very much Agriculture in Alaska.

So, expect no help for McCain on the Economic Front.

Incredible Paper on the Economic Inviability of Nuclear Power.

The Nuclear Illusion

Here's the Author before Congress.

I could fill pages upon pages with the data that struck me very strongly, but I won't bother. Just read the whole thing. :)

Last, by random chance, an Article on Yahoo's front page gives some support to the challenges of Nuclear.

Common Dreams - Nuclear Regulatory Glitches.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission says The Reactor Revival Is NOT Ready For Prime Time

"A devastating blow to the much-hyped revival of atomic power has been delivered by an unlikely source—the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The NRC says the “standardized” designs on which the entire premise of returning nuclear power to center stage is based have massive holes in them, and may not be ready for approval for years to come."


Credit to mgraffis of Yahoo for the find.

H.R.3221 - Rumors of Solar Tax-Credit Extension appear to be false.

Ok, this is what I've dug up.

The House version that just passed is the "American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 [H.R.3221.EAH]"

It contains references to Section 864 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

The Senate Version that had been voted on previously is the "Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 (Engrossed Amendment as Agreed to by Senate)[H.R.3221.EAS]"

See http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.3221:


Both Versions refer to Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The House Version refers to Section 864, which is not what we're looking for. What we're looking for is a reference to Section 48, which is referred to in the Senate Version.


I think that the link posted earlier was the Senate Version.


Reid has said that there will be no changes to the House Version in the Senate.


So, Don't count on anything from Congress.


I've been through so many links and versions, it's not even funny. I can't possibly recreate the exact correct links.


Here's what appears to be the House Version, but I can't guarantee that it's the most recent House Version: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-3221


Here's US Code Section 48, which is the relevant code that needs to be extended, but is not in the House Version: http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t26t28+78+0++%28solar%29%20%20AND%20%28USC%20w%2F10%20%2848%29%29%3ACITE%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20


Freakin' Pussies in Congress. The best thing that could be done would be to help homeowners to pay for products that would add a new kind of value to their ailing properties, and save them money in the long term, also.

GOP Oil Bill

GOP Oil Bill - Full of crap as usual