Excellent question with no definative answer. This recipe invites experimentation.
The longer answer is that the EIA is very, very conservative. They think of their primary audience as being the US Congress. They think of their base case projections as simply being the current situation, and then they provide other scenarios which reflect possible policy changes.
Up to that point, solar will have been doubling every two years and wind every three to four years. I would appreciate any hints as to why they think neither solar nor wind will double for the next ten years after ? In the Department of Energy they predict increases throughwith an end total of Here is there interactive mapping.
Meanwhile, further improvements are poised to make wind economical in every state. EIA guys are well aware their future paychecks and bennies depend on turning out a product satisfactory to their political masters.
Expecting them to publish results that would piss off the big boys who keep congress critters in office via campaign contributions is insanity. Keeping the BAU apple cart upright is a tricky business.
If the public were ever to get the idea that gas and oil are going to be scarce and expensive …. A shit load of bankers and industrialists would lose their asses. OF course the smartest or luckiest ones would see it coming and divest and get into renewables early.
I have no doubt whatsoever that they all see the writing on the wall already! This morning I just happened to be reading the financial statements from BASF and it is perfectly clear that petrochemicals are just way too valuable.
It is just plain stupid to continue burning them as we have been doing until now! Citigroup predicts renewables will replace coal and gas in power generation, which will free up the use of gas as a substitute for oil in transport. But I do believe it is coming.
Optimists of the technology tribe are generally in my opinion a little on the giddy side and fail to take into account plain old inertia and habit on the part of naked apes. Here is an excerpt from the link: UBS, however, argues that solar panels and batteries will be disruptive technologies.
So, too, will electric vehicles and storage. By the end of the decade, it says, the combination of will deliver a pay-back time of between six to 8 years, as this graph below shows. It will fall to around 3 years by Right now, the payback is probably around 12 years, enough to encourage the interest of early adopters.
You can read more here on Why EVs will make solar viable without subsidies. But it could equally apply to Australia, which has both high electricity and high fuel costs, and a lot more sun — so solar is much cheaper.
It is inevitable imo that they will figure out ways to use renewable power to support their economy at less expense to them than paying for ever more expensive imported fossil fuels. I think it is more important that we realize putting money into infrastructure for the long-term support of fossil fuels might not be wise.
Granted, EVs still use roads, so maintaining a road system goes on no matter how vehicles are powered. But we might start making some projections to figure out what we are planning for now which might be needed in 10, 20, or 30 years.
And if we foresee the decline of ICEs, what do we need to do now to facilitate them, without propping them up beyond their usefulness?
Probably the biggest area where we can plan for EVs without making a massive investment in them prematurely are charging stations. Adding more of them is relatively easy and inexpensive.
The other way we can plan is to continue to improve batteries and also plan for the day when utilities will incorporate EV charging and energy storage into their day-to-day operations.
A certain style becomes popular. Then they pop up around the country.
Then shopping preferences change. Companies spend a ton of money to build shopping areas and then have them go empty in 20 or 30 years when shopping changes. One company that has bad earnings aka US shale is Tesla Motors.The Project Gutenberg EBook of Great Expectations, by Charles Dickens This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever.
The project uses funds that had been earmarked for education. the earnings from my second job have been earmarked for a down payment on a car. pork - Traduzione del vocabolo e dei suoi composti, e discussioni del forum.
Jul 31, · An Online Tagalog - English Dictionary Learn Tagalog or Filipino Language for free. At first, the claim that atheism is a religion might sound ridiculous. It certainly can be a surprising claim. And it’s one that many people, including western atheists, might initially dismiss out of hand.
Pork barrel is a metaphor for the appropriation of government spending for localized projects secured solely or primarily to bring money to a representative's monstermanfilm.com usage originated in American English.
In election campaigns, the term is used in derogatory fashion to attack opponents. However, scholars use it as a technical term regarding .