On Nov 17, 8:48*pm, Hawke wrote:


If you would watch that interview with Clinton I told you about on Book
TV you would have a much better idea of how soon solar would be cheaper
than oil.

You want me to take the word of a politician about the future of
solar energy. You do realize the government has no good idea. If
they did they would not have loaned money to Solyndra.

I'm only paraphrasing but he was saying that every time we put in
another solar energy farm the cost goes down 30%. He said that in five
years it'll be as cheap as oil. He said Solyndra went down because new
technology changed so fast that it made them unprofitable. Every year
oil is going to keep going up in price because it's getting harder and
harder to get it. All the easy oil is gone. Oil tar sand is profitable
when the price gets to around 10 bucks a gallon. By the time we reach
that level solar and wind will be cheaper.


Solar has been just five years away from being cheaper than oil since
about 1972. And I expect it to be just five years away when I die.
Oil and natural gas have been getting cheaper not more expensive. The
drilling techniques have improved so that oil and natural gas in shale
is now profitable. Oil from tar sand is profitable when crude is
about $80 a barrel. So oil from tar sand is profitable right now.
That is why they want to build the keystone pipeline. Have you not
been paying attention. A barrel of oil is 42 gallons so you are off
by a factor of 5. The other problem with solar is of course the power
goes away at night and when it is cloudy. So solar power is not
economically feasible in a lot of states. You can build solar farms
in desert regions, but then you need transmission lines. And
transporting electricity long distances means significant power
losses. You lose about half the power in transmission lines. So you
need twice as much power if you locate the solar farms in Arizona and
send the power to Texas.

When I was in grade school ,the known oil reserves were good for about
15 years. Now some 60 years later the known oil reserves are more. I
can find places on the internet that say the oil reserves are good for
140 years. I am not sure I believe that, but it is closer to being
right than "solar power will be cheaper than oil in five years"

http://www.radford.edu/wkovarik/oil/

"To begin with, one of the most revealing speeches about world oil
reserves went unremarked in 2006. The head of the world's largest oil
company, Saudi Aramco, said:

“We are looking at more than four and a half trillion barrels of
potentially recoverable oil. That number translates into 140 years of
oil at current rates of consumption, or to put it anther way, the
world has only consumed about 18 percent of its conventional oil
potential. That fact alone should discredit the argument that peak oil
is imminent and put our minds at ease concerning future petrol
supplies.” "



Clinton also said in North Dakota alone there is enough wind power to
provide something like 24% of our energy needs. What we need is a modern
electrical grid to make it happen. So what do you want to do? Stick with
trying to get more fossil fuels, which gets harder and more expensive
all the time or just go for the newer cleaner fuels. If you choose to go
the clean route all the old energy industries and their allies call you
every name in the book. I can understand why. They're going the way of
the buggy whip.

Hawke

What I want to do is let oil, natural gas , solar , and wind power to
compete. There is certainly no need to rush into solar or wind power.
There is no need to have government programs to subsidize any of the
energy sources. There certainly is no need to help companies as
Solyndra. The cheapest source of energy will change over time, but
right now it is natural gas and it looks like it will stay that way
for another thirty or more years.


Dan