Panama Papers Prove America Has the Money to Transition to 100% Clean Energy

[eridani]

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/04/28/panama-papers-prove-america-has-money-transition-100-clean-energy

The fossil fuel economy wreaks havoc wherever it exists. It’s past time for us to move beyond it.

But what do we hear time and time again? We can’t afford to get off fossil fuels. It’s just too expensive. Now, solar and battery technology are fast changing that tune—allowing rock-bottom prices that out-compete coal and gas across the country and incredible electric cars with ranges that rival their gas-guzzling competitors.

We have the money to fix it. The Panama Papers revealed just how far the ultra-rich will go to not pay taxes.

And let’s not glorify it. Not one has ever gotten rich without using goods and resources financed by everybody else—electricity, the internet, roads, air, water, land. These public resources are built up by low income communities and communities of color who pay their taxes year in and year out, because to do anything else would mean facing consequences.

Not these bad actors. They’ve been stealing access to our national wealth all to build up their personal wealth—and then using tax havens to build yet more. At least $150 billion dollars a year of American taxes aren’t paid by the ultra wealthy. And if you look at global estimates by the Tax Justice Network—the rich are likely hiding more than $21 trillion dollars of tax-free assets offshore.

Just a small portion of these robbed assets could transform America’s economy and put us on track to achieving 100 percent clean and renewable energy by 2050 and 50 percent clean energy by 2030.

[SusanCalvin]

1. The Hoovered it up. Let's claw it back.

Little to none of that was "earned."

[DetlefK]

2. The technology isn't ready yet.

- Wind-power is all nice and dandy, but the amount of energy produced at an individual turbine varies drastically with time. For a large-scale use of wind-power, you would need a completely revamped electricity-grid that can even out those irregularities. Current grids don't have the necessary flexibility.
-> time, money and workpower

- Solar roofs are all fine and dandy, but the problem is practically the same: The grid wasn't designed for regulating the electricity produced by millions of tiny producers.
-> time, money and workpower

- We need a solution what to do if we have too much electricity from solar sources: If a solar-cell produces electricity but can't get rid of it, an electrophysical imbalance builds up inside and deteriorates the solar-cell. If that happens too often, the solar-cell no longer works.

- Electric cars are all fine and dandy, but they won't make it big until the process of reloading is as comfortable as with gas-engines.
-> brainpower

- Same goes for hydrogen-powered cars: Refueling takes about 1 hour. With gas, it takes only 5 minutes.
-> brainpower

[Scuba]

4. Your post is a little confusing.

You state the "technology isn't ready yet" as if the technology doesn't exist, yet your first two examples - wind and solar - only need existing technology to be deployed on a wide-spread basis.

The OP article suggests we could use the avoided taxes to deploy the technology.

BTW, electric cars are already "making it big."

[DetlefK]

5. Electric cars are still too expensive and there are too few refueling-stations.

If you want your product to succeed, it has to be better than what's currently available. And in terms of comfort, gas-powered cars are still better than electric- or hydrogens-cars.

What would you buy? A normal car that takes 5 minutes to refuel? Or an expensive car that can only be refueled at special gas-stations and takes hours to refuel?



We have the technology, but the technology isn't good enough yet to replace existing and established products.

[Enthusiast]

7. If we listened to the voices like your's we would still be in a horse and buggy. "No we can't!"

[DetlefK]

8. Why don't you invest on "Back to the Future"-style hoverboards?

They exist. Absolutely not kidding. A hovering board you can ride almost like a skateboard.

Except that you have to refuel it every 15 minutes with liquid nitrogen.
And except that it only works on metal-plated ground.
And except that you can't steer it into curves without stepping off.

But other than that, we have hoverboard-technology and they will replace skateboards any day now.

[Enthusiast]

9. Adopting the use of hoverboards isn't quite as critical to the CO2 level as alternative renewable.

Climate change is now, not some far off distant thing in the future that we can choose to ignore.

Obviously new grid technology is available now. It will require an active effort by the government. If we allow the fossil fuel industry to decide these things for us they will always conjure up excuses like we need a whole new electrical grid.

[DetlefK]

11. You misunderstood my post.

Even though we have hoverboards and even though they are technologically better than skateboards, the technological gap (and price-gap) isn't high enough yet for them to replace ordinary skateboards.

Same with electric cars. In some ways they are worse than gas-powered cars and in other ways they are better. But if you want to sell them, the advantages to the consumer (e.g. cleaner air in cities) must outweigh the disadvantages (e.g. high price). And we aren't at that stage yet.

In 5 years, in 10 years the latest, but not as of 2016.

[Enthusiast]

12. In 5 years, in 10 years the latest, but not as of 2016?

How long with a bought government dragging their feet at every turn?

I understood your post perfectly well.

[Enthusiast]

6. Huge +1!

[Dustlawyer]

10. You mean "Grid infrastructure". They could do it, it just cost $$$.

I read an article the other day on an almost infinite rechargeable battery invented by accident, or a grad student who was really just playing around outside the box. This just solved the battery problem that was the weak link with home and business solar. It's going to have yuuuuge implications.

We can do this if we can win the battle against fossil fuel and power company interests. Power companies will make the money off of the grid in the future, not generation.

[Duppers]

13. You live in Germany. Ironic considering German Wind Farms..

Are producing so much electricity they are paying users to take it!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112794509

Now, what say you?

[hunter]

15. You can see the German power mix in real time. Mostly it's coal.

https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm

Nobody has solved the intermittent nature of wind and solar yet, not in any inexpensive way. Anyone who has lived entirely off the grid using solar and batteries knows how wretched batteries are. Tesla's automotive battery packs adapted for home use might be an improved technology, but they won't ever be cheap.

When the sun is shining weekdays maybe most of the power I use in my house is from my neighbor's solar panels, but overall most of my electricity is generated by gas, with some hydro and nuclear in the mix.

Probably the best shot of dealing with the problem is shutting down the economy as we now know it.

If I was Emperor of the Planet Earth I'd simply outlaw fossil fuels, phasing them out over a decade or so, and let the pieces fall where they may.

That would not make me popular...

Especially not with investors in things like Australia's Gorgon gas project which will soon be, if it isn't already, the single most expensive energy project ever.

[turbinetree]

3. If we can do this, then we can have clean energy........................

but with the "majority" of the current crop in office ............cynicism ...............

Honk---------------for a political revolution Bernie 2016

[NickB79]

14. It's about more than money. It's about the time needed to scale up renewables and infrastructure

If I gave you all the trillions of dollars needed to build me massive windfarms and solar panels, you couldn't just pull them out of the air.

You need time to build factories, train employees, ensure raw material streams (which would be massive), build associated infrastructure, construct all the parts, transport all the parts, and install/connect all the finished products. These things take time, often decades, given the sheer scope of the situation. And that assumes that you don't encounter homeowners who don't want transmission lines across their land or wind farms nearby (just look at what happened to Cape Wind when they wanted to build offshore) who will tie you up for years in court.

What we need is money, and TIME. And given how far behind we've fallen, time is a commodity money can't buy.

For example, this recent study lays out what we need to do just to meet the Paris Agreement with regard to wind installations as compared to today: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160323152508.htm

The Paris Agreement's overall goal is to replace fossil fuels, which emit huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere which in turn leads to higher temperatures, with renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power and biofuels.

"Just considering wind power, we found that it would take an annual installation of 485,000 5-megawatt wind turbines by 2028. The equivalent of about 13,000 were installed in 2015. That's a 37-fold increase in the annual installation rate in only 13 years to achieve just the wind power goal," adds Jones.

Similar expansion rates are needed for other renewable energy sources.

So yes, while it is theoretically possible to go 100% renewable in a short period of time, it would take a nationwide effort that would make the WWII war effort look like child's play.