Coronavirus response can ‘reshape the future of energy,’ IEA says in annual report

[chuckChuck]

And all you righties are so kind and polite! LMAO

[furrowtickler]

And all you righties are so kind and polite! LMAO

You get responded to appropriately most times

[ajl]

Fossil fuel subsidies only exist in the the left wing mind. The fossil fuel industry usually is called upon to fund subsidies elsewhere in the economy but there are no on going industry subsidies. Where would they fund them from? Anyways, glad Klause posted some real world experience with renewable energy and some actual data. Can make my own calculations regarding viability with that information. Does look like it may have a fit in some situations.

[bucket]

well shit, its the same as wheat at 1970's prices and bread at todays prices

Galen Weston priced fixed bread for over a decade , admitted it and then got rewarded with new freezers.

[Hamloc]

I posted my solar output numbers many months ago and I got the same response as i am getting now! HAHA

But the IEA wrong?

No Chuck2 all you posted was what you claimed the output was. I asked you what it cost to install, what you were getting paid for the electricity and how much you were subsidized all which you refused to answer.

[Hamloc]

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/13/coronavirus-response-can-reshape-the-future-of-energy-iea-says.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/13/coronavirus-response-can-reshape-the-future-of-energy-iea-says.html

Going forward, IEA believes that renewables will take “starring roles,” and solar will take “center stage,” driven by supportive government policies and declining costs.

“I see solar becoming the new king of the world’s electricity markets,” said Fatih Birol, IEA’s executive director. “Based on today’s policy settings, it is on track to set new records for deployment every year after 2022.”

On the other hand, IEA forecasts that coal demand will not return to pre-coronavirus levels, and that it will account for less than 20% of energy consumption by 2040, for the first time since the Industrial Revolution. Oil will remain “vulnerable to the major economic uncertainties resulting from the pandemic,” with demand starting to decline after 2030, the agency said.

https://www.iea.org/news/world-energy-outlook-2020-shows-how-the-response-to-the-covid-crisis-can-reshape-the-future-of-energy https://www.iea.org/news/world-energy-outlook-2020-shows-how-the-response-to-the-covid-crisis-can-reshape-the-future-of-energy

World Energy Outlook from International Energy Agency

Renewables take starring roles in all our scenarios, with solar centre stage. Supportive policies and maturing technologies are enabling very cheap access to capital in leading markets. Solar PV is now consistently cheaper than new coal- or gas-fired power plants in most countries, and solar projects now offer some of the lowest cost electricity ever seen. In the Stated Policies Scenario, renewables meet 80% of global electricity demand growth over the next decade. Hydropower remains the largest renewable source, but solar is the main source of growth, followed by onshore and offshore wind.

“I see solar becoming the new king of the world’s electricity markets. Based on today’s policy settings, it is on track to set new records for deployment every year after 2022,” said Dr Fatih Birol, the IEA Executive Director. “If governments and investors step up their clean energy efforts in line with our Sustainable Development Scenario, the growth of both solar and wind would be even more spectacular – and hugely encouraging for overcoming the world’s climate challenge.”

Fml too funny, so renewables will meet “80% of demand growth”! So this means that renewables will do nothing in relation to existing use of electricity. Is this lost on you Chuck2 or don’t you understand what you cut and paste?

[Guest]

No Chuck2 all you posted was what you claimed the output was. I asked you what it cost to install, what you were getting paid for the electricity and how much you were subsidized all which you refused to answer.

theres those godamn details again, poor chuck !

[Guest]

Fml too funny, so renewables will meet “80% of demand growth”! So this means that renewables will do nothing in relation to existing use of electricity. Is this lost on you Chuck2 or don’t you understand what you cut and paste?

its obvious he doesn't read half the drivel he posts or half the posts he criticizes

[chuckChuck]

From the IMF. For those who think fossil fuels aren't subsidized!
According to the IMF Canada subsidies are $43 Billion USD, 2.7% of GDP, $1191 USD per capita.

https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2019/05/02/Global-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Remain-Large-An-Update-Based-on-Country-Level-Estimates-46509 https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2019/05/02/Global-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Remain-Large-An-Update-Based-on-Country-Level-Estimates-46509

Global Fossil Fuel Subsidies Remain Large: An Update Based on Country-Level Estimates

This paper updates estimates of fossil fuel subsidies, defined as fuel consumption times the gap between existing and efficient prices (i.e., prices warranted by supply costs, environmental costs, and revenue considerations), for 191 countries. Globally, subsidies remained large at $4.7 trillion (6.3 percent of global GDP) in 2015 and are projected at $5.2 trillion (6.5 percent of GDP) in 2017. The largest subsidizers in 2015 were China ($1.4 trillion), United States ($649 billion), Russia ($551 billion), European Union ($289 billion), and India ($209 billion). About three quarters of global subsidies are due to domestic factors—energy pricing reform thus remains largely in countries’ own national interest—while coal and petroleum together account for 85 percent of global subsidies. Efficient fossil fuel pricing in 2015 would have lowered global carbon emissions by 28 percent and fossil fuel air pollution deaths by 46 percent, and increased government revenue by 3.8 percent of GDP.

[SASKFARMER]

Its Chuck and the Magic Carpet ride.

Man are you stoned most days or just this ****ing stupid.

I have to ask because lately, it's like your off your meds.

Phone the helpline, please.

[Hamloc]

From the IMF. For those who think fossil fuels aren't subsidized!
According to the IMF Canada subsidies are $43 Billion USD, 2.7% of GDP, $1191 USD per capita.

https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2019/05/02/Global-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Remain-Large-An-Update-Based-on-Country-Level-Estimates-46509 https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2019/05/02/Global-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Remain-Large-An-Update-Based-on-Country-Level-Estimates-46509

Global Fossil Fuel Subsidies Remain Large: An Update Based on Country-Level Estimates

This paper updates estimates of fossil fuel subsidies, defined as fuel consumption times the gap between existing and efficient prices (i.e., prices warranted by supply costs, environmental costs, and revenue considerations), for 191 countries. Globally, subsidies remained large at $4.7 trillion (6.3 percent of global GDP) in 2015 and are projected at $5.2 trillion (6.5 percent of GDP) in 2017. The largest subsidizers in 2015 were China ($1.4 trillion), United States ($649 billion), Russia ($551 billion), European Union ($289 billion), and India ($209 billion). About three quarters of global subsidies are due to domestic factors—energy pricing reform thus remains largely in countries’ own national interest—while coal and petroleum together account for 85 percent of global subsidies. Efficient fossil fuel pricing in 2015 would have lowered global carbon emissions by 28 percent and fossil fuel air pollution deaths by 46 percent, and increased government revenue by 3.8 percent of GDP.

Your like Donald Trump Chuck2, you get crazier every day LOL! So basically your article says that because fossil fuels in the above countries weren’t taxed at a high enough level it is considered a subsidy, what a bunch of B.S. So if a country wants to increase economic growth by letting the market decide what fossil fuels are worth they are subsidizing fossil fuels, really? The best part of your cut and paste is how well it illustrates the falsehood of the lefts claim that fossil fuels are highly subsidized, the absence of government pricing intervention or absence of taxes is not a subsidy!!

[chuckChuck]

No Chuck2 all you posted was what you claimed the output was. I asked you what it cost to install, what you were getting paid for the electricity and how much you were subsidized all which you refused to answer.

Not true I posted all this several months ago. And I will post this again once I have a chance to get more office work done.

You can also ask Klause for his numbers. Here are the basics from memory:

My 25kw system puts out about 35,000 kwh per year. Its net metering under the old Sask plan so I get the same price I pay for electricity for the first 10 years. I use a bit more than I produce depending on the year and how many fans I run for grain drying.

I know even without the Saskpower rebate I estimated the long term cost of electricity from my solar system will be around 8 cents per Kwh. We pay around 14 cents to Saskpower.

But there are several things that will change the cost estimate. Life span, I think I used 25 or 30 years, equipment failure and replacement, small annual declines in output.

[Guest]

Do you suppose he doesnt read them at all ? This drivel he forwards?

[chuckChuck]

Your like Donald Trump Chuck2, you get crazier every day LOL! So basically your article says that because fossil fuels in the above countries weren’t taxed at a high enough level it is considered a subsidy, what a bunch of B.S. So if a country wants to increase economic growth by letting the market decide what fossil fuels are worth they are subsidizing fossil fuels, really? The best part of your cut and paste is how well it illustrates the falsehood of the lefts claim that fossil fuels are highly subsidized, the absence of government pricing intervention or absence of taxes is not a subsidy!!

You write the IMF and tell then your concerns! LOL And you are an economist? Where did you do your degrees?

[Hamloc]

Not true I posted all this several months ago. And I will post this again once I have a chance to get more office work done.

You can also ask Klause for his numbers. Here are the basics from memory:

My 25kw system puts out about 35,000 kwh per year. Its net metering under the old Sask plan so I get the same price I pay for electricity for the first 10 years. I use a bit more than I produce depending on the year and how many fans I run for grain drying.

I know even without the Saskpower rebate I estimated the long term cost of electricity from my solar system will be around 8 cents per Kwh. We pay around 14 cents to Saskpower.

But there are several things that will change the cost estimate. Life span, I think I used 25 or 30 years, equipment failure and replacement, small annual declines in output.

Interestingly enough you still haven’t told me what it cost to install and how much government subsidy you received. I can however extrapolate that if your cost of electricity was 8 cents a kwh and you based it on a lifetime of 25 years the cost of your system was $70000 dollars or $2 an installed watt. Still doesn’t tell me how many tax dollars were used to subsidize your installation. Also ground mount or roof mount? Do you change the angle spring and fall?