Well I hope the Dems are proud of themselves

[partgypsy]

I do know. I work at the VA and past year needed to call vets or caregivers for research. And my very unscientific observation it seems that people are more suspicious about the government and research than even a few years ago, in the sense of a lot more hang ups before I can finish a sentence. Or maybe people are less polite. It's hard to understand how accurate a phone poll is when so many people do not answer their phone.

I don't distrust the government so much as I distrust being called by someone I don't know.  I won't even pick up the phone 9 times out of 10.  And nowadays scammers can mimic other phone numbers on caller ID, so that's not even a dependable filter anymore.  I would be one of those to hang up on you if I did happen to pick up.  It's no offense to you.  There are just too many dishonest players out there.

So by extension, maybe the proliferation of auto-dialers and phone scams in the last 8-10 years has reduced trust/patience in unfamiliar callers, like pollsters. And perhaps this effect is more pronounced among people who would vote for Trump because of some reason such as:

a) they get more such calls (possibly due to being a scam victim before?)
b) they are more likely to give out their phone number to companies that sell their phone number,
c) they are not as good at screening these calls, or they get more annoyed by these calls than non-Trump voters.
d) your guess?

d) Older and taught to answer every call.
e) A slight persecution complex, like we've seen on social media, where they fear expressing their views will get them criticized or ostracized.

any and all of the above, if I had to guess. I have to say alot of the angry hang ups were older people who were in the generation of, answering phones. I just don't understand the whole, answer the phone but then hang up before I can complete my sentence. I mean, just let your voice mail answer at that point? 

[Ron Scott]

FWIW—Bill Gates just bought all the production for 20 years on a 3 Mile Island restart. Fun!

Not BG but MS, to power their AI.
Because 3 of those are not enough for good results.

Oh, OK. I heard a podcast with Gates and assumed.

Anyway, I think the fossil lobby has played the parties like a fiddle this time. NO ONE wants to cross them in the national elections…

[PeteD01]

FWIW—Bill Gates just bought all the production for 20 years on a 3 Mile Island restart. Fun!

Not BG but MS, to power their AI.
Because 3 of those are not enough for good results.

Oh, OK. I heard a podcast with Gates and assumed.

Anyway, I think the fossil lobby has played the parties like a fiddle this time. NO ONE wants to cross them in the national elections…

Fossil fuel issues have taken somewhat of a back seat in this election cycle because there are some issues with much higher immediate salience.
Reproductive health (women's inalienable rights, just to make it clear) and the Project 2025 game plan are rightly up front right now.
Dealing effectively with fossil fuel interests is pretty much contingent on thwarting Project 2025 type autocratic takeovers.

Reproductive Rights
Project 2025 will...

...eliminate the requirement that health insurance plans cover birth control. This means that women may have to pay more for birth control. [483]

...eliminate coverage for male contraceptives such as condoms. This means that men may have to pay more for birth control. [485]

...make it harder for women to get birth control through Title X family planning clinics. This means some women might have fewer choices for where to get birth control. [491]

...allow states to require Title X family planning clinics to provide information about the importance of marriage. This means that some women may feel pressured to get married in order to receive family planning services, including contraception. [480]

...allow religious employers to refuse to provide contraception coverage to their employees. This means that some women may have to pay for contraception if their employer objects to it on religious grounds. [483]

...eliminate the week-after-pill from the contraceptive mandate as a potential abortifacient. This would make it harder for women to get emergency contraception, which can help prevent pregnancy after unprotected sex. [485]

...reinstate earlier safety protocols for Mifeprex. This would make it harder for women to get abortion pills, even in states where abortion is legal. [458]

...stop promoting or approving mail-order abortions. This would make it harder for women to get abortion pills, even in states where abortion is legal. [459]

...reverse its approval of chemical abortion drugs. This would make it much harder for women to get abortions, especially in states where abortion is illegal. [458]

...prohibit abortion travel funding. This would make it harder for women to get abortions, especially those who live in states where abortion is illegal. [471]

...prohibit Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds. This would make it harder for women to get affordable health care, including cancer screenings and contraception. [471]

...withdraw Medicaid funds for states that require abortion insurance or that discriminate in violation of the Weldon Amendment. This would punish states that try to protect women's access to abortion care. [472]

...rewrite the ACA abortion separate payment regulation. This would make it harder for women to get insurance coverage for abortion care. [473]

...audit Hyde Amendment compliance. This could lead to cuts in funding for programs that provide health care to low-income women, including those that provide abortion care. [473]

...promote "fetal personhood" from the moment of conception. This would mean abortion would no long be considered healthcare, and could threaten procedures like IVF (In Vitro Fertilization). [450]

...reverse guidance that enables hospitals receiving Medicare funds to perform emergency abortions. This would enable hospitals in pro-life states to refuse to perform abortions, even when it is necessary to save a woman's life. [473]

...collect data on abortion, including requiring states to report detailed information about abortion procedures and patients. This could be used to stigmatize abortion and create a chilling effect on providers, further limiting access to care. [455]

[Telecaster]

I don't distrust the government so much as I distrust being called by someone I don't know.  I won't even pick up the phone 9 times out of 10.  And nowadays scammers can mimic other phone numbers on caller ID, so that's not even a dependable filter anymore.  I would be one of those to hang up on you if I did happen to pick up.  It's no offense to you.  There are just too many dishonest players out there.

I a round table discussion with some reporters.   They talked about how they used to be able to just call people and get a quote or some information, and now nobody picks up the phone.

[Ron Scott]

Trying to figure out how the candidates are planning to deal with energy production and climate management is tricky.

Trump is most likely burn baby burn, but I’m sure Elon’s got him soft on electric cars.

Harris has promised not to interfere with fracking so I guess she’ll keep that promise.

Meanwhile—while renewables are getting better and cheaper, fossil is still strong and probably growing. And AI/big tech are planning mega-energy usage wherever they can get it.

FWIW—Bill Gates just bought all the production for 20 years on a 3 Mile Island restart. Fun!

Not BG but MS, to power their AI.
Because 3 of those are not enough for good results.

Oh, OK. I heard a podcast with Gates and assumed.

Anyway, I think the fossil lobby has played the parties like a fiddle this time. NO ONE wants to cross them in the national elections…

Fossil fuel issues have taken somewhat of a back seat in this election cycle because there are some issues with much higher immediate salience.

I don’t see the parties’ positions on climate and energy as “somewhat of a back seat”.  I’d call it a retrenchment or even capitulation. Our energy needs are growing exponentially and there are no solutions that our weak political parties can find traction on. Add typical politics and big $$ lobbying—and they’re stuck in the mud. We lack leadership.

[LennStar]

I just don't understand the whole, answer the phone but then hang up before I can complete my sentence. I mean, just let your voice mail answer at that point?

I answer the phone because you never know. It could be the doctor. Or my landlord. Or my mother from a friend's house.
Doesn't happen often, but can. And all that is important for me. But when I hear the word poll or similar, I hang up, don't waste my time!!

Voice mail? Putting aside I don't even know how to, it would mean I had to wait an unknown time until they are finished, open the voicemail, listen to their talking which I might not understand, and likely call them back. Which might mean several minutes waiting/ several tries.
Picking up and - if needed - slamming down is waaaay faster.

[partgypsy]

It's interesting how with internet, email, phone, much of the utility of it has been ruined. Not the lack of information. But the chaff rapidly outnumbering the wheat. And also the inability to I'd the chaff and separate it from the wheat. Spammers, ads, infomercials, attention grabbing low info content and also sigh, fake news or what is really is, opinion pieces presented as news, or even propaganda. What it means, 10 years ago for these kind of studies it was not difficult reaching people by phone. Now it is more difficult, meaning more people need to be called.

[PeteD01]

Trying to figure out how the candidates are planning to deal with energy production and climate management is tricky.

Trump is most likely burn baby burn, but I’m sure Elon’s got him soft on electric cars.

Harris has promised not to interfere with fracking so I guess she’ll keep that promise.

Meanwhile—while renewables are getting better and cheaper, fossil is still strong and probably growing. And AI/big tech are planning mega-energy usage wherever they can get it.

FWIW—Bill Gates just bought all the production for 20 years on a 3 Mile Island restart. Fun!

Not BG but MS, to power their AI.
Because 3 of those are not enough for good results.

Oh, OK. I heard a podcast with Gates and assumed.

Anyway, I think the fossil lobby has played the parties like a fiddle this time. NO ONE wants to cross them in the national elections…

Fossil fuel issues have taken somewhat of a back seat in this election cycle because there are some issues with much higher immediate salience.

I don’t see the parties’ positions on climate and energy as “somewhat of a back seat”.  I’d call it a retrenchment or even capitulation. Our energy needs are growing exponentially and there are no solutions that our weak political parties can find traction on. Add typical politics and big $$ lobbying—and they’re stuck in the mud. We lack leadership.

You are confusing the salience with the importance of an issue.

Fossil fuel issues are of great importance but have lower salience than entirely fictional issues like immigrants eating pets or abortions after birth, which are having high salience in this election for a substantial number of voters notwithstanding that they are not important at all, being entirely fictional.

[LaineyAZ]

Re:  polling    I'm on the email list for YouGov, an online polling firm.  They've existed for years.
It's free to register and you can select the types of polls they send to you.  They poll on everything from fashion to travel to politics.  I only answer the polls on politics.
You accumulate points which can be cashed in for gift cards. 

I'm in a swing state so we get more of the political polls than some other locations, but I think it's a modern way to poll vs. the phone.  At least twice I've seen YouGov credited for political data in a TV report, so it must have credibility.

Also, I wouldn't underestimate door-to-door canvassing.  Again, I realize most people don't answer their front door or have Ring type cameras so they ignore strangers, but the people who do talk to canvassers can definitely add to the results.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

I'm in a swing state so we get more of the political polls than some other locations, but I think it's a modern way to poll vs. the phone.  At least twice I've seen YouGov credited for political data in a TV report, so it must have credibility.

FiveThirtyEight has a list of over 400 pollsters, and ranks YouGov #4.  Extremely reliable.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/

[LennStar]

Re:  polling    I'm on the email list for YouGov, an online polling firm.  They've existed for years.
It's free to register and you can select the types of polls they send to you.  They poll on everything from fashion to travel to politics.  I only answer the polls on politics.
You accumulate points which can be cashed in for gift cards. 

I'm in a swing state so we get more of the political polls than some other locations, but I think it's a modern way to poll vs. the phone.  At least twice I've seen YouGov credited for political data in a TV report, so it must have credibility.

Also, I wouldn't underestimate door-to-door canvassing.  Again, I realize most people don't answer their front door or have Ring type cameras so they ignore strangers, but the people who do talk to canvassers can definitely add to the results.

I did that for several years too. Not only political, but from the others I was thrown out 90% of the time because I was not "the targeted socialogical group", aka, my income was not in the upper half.
Political ones happened less than once per month.

[LaineyAZ]

Yep, answering a poll takes about 5 to 15 minutes, which they tell you up front.  It's an easy way to get your opinion into the data if you don't want to answer the phone or talk to a canvasser at your door. 

[Ron Scott]

Trying to figure out how the candidates are planning to deal with energy production and climate management is tricky.

Trump is most likely burn baby burn, but I’m sure Elon’s got him soft on electric cars.

Harris has promised not to interfere with fracking so I guess she’ll keep that promise.

Meanwhile—while renewables are getting better and cheaper, fossil is still strong and probably growing. And AI/big tech are planning mega-energy usage wherever they can get it.

FWIW—Bill Gates just bought all the production for 20 years on a 3 Mile Island restart. Fun!

Not BG but MS, to power their AI.
Because 3 of those are not enough for good results.

Oh, OK. I heard a podcast with Gates and assumed.

Anyway, I think the fossil lobby has played the parties like a fiddle this time. NO ONE wants to cross them in the national elections…

Fossil fuel issues have taken somewhat of a back seat in this election cycle because there are some issues with much higher immediate salience.

I don’t see the parties’ positions on climate and energy as “somewhat of a back seat”.  I’d call it a retrenchment or even capitulation. Our energy needs are growing exponentially and there are no solutions that our weak political parties can find traction on. Add typical politics and big $$ lobbying—and they’re stuck in the mud. We lack leadership.

You are confusing the salience with the importance of an issue.

Fossil fuel issues are of great importance but have lower salience than entirely fictional issues like immigrants eating pets or abortions after birth, which are having high salience in this election for a substantial number of voters notwithstanding that they are not important at all, being entirely fictional.

LOL—and who do you think determines what issues are worthy of the candidates’ focus? Hello? It’s the candidates…

And while we’re at it, my guess is the current decade is THE MOST important and contentious for the US internationally in your life. Some argue war is on the brink. There’s a credible foe in Russia/China/NK/Iran. And so on.

Why aren’t the candidates—who want to represent US—talking about what you call “important” things? Answer: They don’t think it’s in their own interest to do so. So f’ing tiring.

Common…

[nereo]

And while we’re at it, my guess is the current decade is THE MOST important and contentious for the US internationally in your life. Some argue war is on the brink. There’s a credible foe in Russia/China/NK/Iran. And so on.

Hard to take this comment as anything but sarcasm. In my lifetime I was born during the end of the Cold War when the USSR collapsed, had 9/11, had US deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan (both of which cost far more treasure than Vietnam).

People have always argued war is “on the brink”. Few that study military history actually think it’s eminent, and entirely unpredictable more than a few years into the future. Russia isn’t a credible foe to the US. Just look at how utterly terrible their conflict with Ukraine has been, an adjacent country far less equipped. NK and Iran are even less credible. China is certainly a powerful adversary, but China has no interest in direct conflict with the West and is playing the long (decades) game.

Sure, I could be wrong and WW3 could break out in the next five years. The geopolitical landscape can shift dramatically in a few years. But hard the envision this decade as being more consequential internationally than the early aughts or the 80s or who knows what the 40s or 50s will be like…

[PeteD01]

...

You are confusing the salience with the importance of an issue.

Fossil fuel issues are of great importance but have lower salience than entirely fictional issues like immigrants eating pets or abortions after birth, which are having high salience in this election for a substantial number of voters notwithstanding that they are not important at all, being entirely fictional.

LOL—and who do you think determines what issues are worthy of the candidates’ focus? Hello? It’s the candidates…

...

Nobody has suggested otherwise.

But you do seem to be easily amused.

...

And while we’re at it, my guess is the current decade is THE MOST important and contentious for the US internationally in your life. Some argue war is on the brink. There’s a credible foe in Russia/China/NK/Iran. And so on.

Why aren’t the candidates—who want to represent US—talking about what you call “important” things? Answer: They don’t think it’s in their own interest to do so. So f’ing tiring.

Common…

Well, we are talking electoral politics here and discordance, between what's important outside the context of the approaching election and what gains traction (salience) as an issue within the context of the election, is pretty much the rule and not some deficiency that can just be wished away once recognized.

[Telecaster]

I don’t see the parties’ positions on climate and energy as “somewhat of a back seat”.  I’d call it a retrenchment or even capitulation. Our energy needs are growing exponentially and there are no solutions that our weak political parties can find traction on. Add typical politics and big $$ lobbying—and they’re stuck in the mud. We lack leadership.

Interesting take.   Under incentives provided by the Inflation Reduction Act, Diablo Canyon nuclear plant operational life is being extended, the Palisades nuclear plant is being restarted, and it sounds like Three Mile Island will be restarted under the same program. 

Terrapower's SMR broke ground in Wyoming, also with incentives provided by the IRA.    High Assay, Low Enriched Uranium (HALEU) will be necessary for the SMR industry, and the IRA also provided funds to start a domestic HALEU program. 

This year, the US will add 55% more new electrical generation capacity than it did last year, nearly all of wind and solar.   New solar capacity in 2024 is expected to be double that of 2023, which was an all time record.  IRA production tax credits helped incentivize this, as did generous support for transmission connections and upgrades. 

Somewhat overlooked, but very importantly the IRA contained significant funding for energy efficiency improvements--which is the cheapest way to add capacity.

Not a single Republican voted for the IRA, of course.   

[Ron Scott]

I don’t see the parties’ positions on climate and energy as “somewhat of a back seat”.  I’d call it a retrenchment or even capitulation. Our energy needs are growing exponentially and there are no solutions that our weak political parties can find traction on. Add typical politics and big $$ lobbying—and they’re stuck in the mud. We lack leadership.

Interesting take.   Under incentives provided by the Inflation Reduction Act, Diablo Canyon nuclear plant operational life is being extended, the Palisades nuclear plant is being restarted, and it sounds like Three Mile Island will be restarted under the same program. 

Terrapower's SMR broke ground in Wyoming, also with incentives provided by the IRA.    High Assay, Low Enriched Uranium (HALEU) will be necessary for the SMR industry, and the IRA also provided funds to start a domestic HALEU program. 

This year, the US will add 55% more new electrical generation capacity than it did last year, nearly all of wind and solar.   New solar capacity in 2024 is expected to be double that of 2023, which was an all time record.  IRA production tax credits helped incentivize this, as did generous support for transmission connections and upgrades. 

Somewhat overlooked, but very importantly the IRA contained significant funding for energy efficiency improvements--which is the cheapest way to add capacity.

Not a single Republican voted for the IRA, of course.

For perspective…

[Kris]

I don’t see the parties’ positions on climate and energy as “somewhat of a back seat”.  I’d call it a retrenchment or even capitulation. Our energy needs are growing exponentially and there are no solutions that our weak political parties can find traction on. Add typical politics and big $$ lobbying—and they’re stuck in the mud. We lack leadership.

Interesting take.   Under incentives provided by the Inflation Reduction Act, Diablo Canyon nuclear plant operational life is being extended, the Palisades nuclear plant is being restarted, and it sounds like Three Mile Island will be restarted under the same program. 

Terrapower's SMR broke ground in Wyoming, also with incentives provided by the IRA.    High Assay, Low Enriched Uranium (HALEU) will be necessary for the SMR industry, and the IRA also provided funds to start a domestic HALEU program. 

This year, the US will add 55% more new electrical generation capacity than it did last year, nearly all of wind and solar.   New solar capacity in 2024 is expected to be double that of 2023, which was an all time record.  IRA production tax credits helped incentivize this, as did generous support for transmission connections and upgrades. 

Somewhat overlooked, but very importantly the IRA contained significant funding for energy efficiency improvements--which is the cheapest way to add capacity.

Not a single Republican voted for the IRA, of course.

For perspective…

And if Republicans had their way, that number would be 0%. Imagine how much bigger that slice could be if the Republicans weren’t such obstructionists.

[Ron Scott]

I don’t see the parties’ positions on climate and energy as “somewhat of a back seat”.  I’d call it a retrenchment or even capitulation. Our energy needs are growing exponentially and there are no solutions that our weak political parties can find traction on. Add typical politics and big $$ lobbying—and they’re stuck in the mud. We lack leadership.

Interesting take.   Under incentives provided by the Inflation Reduction Act, Diablo Canyon nuclear plant operational life is being extended, the Palisades nuclear plant is being restarted, and it sounds like Three Mile Island will be restarted under the same program. 

Terrapower's SMR broke ground in Wyoming, also with incentives provided by the IRA.    High Assay, Low Enriched Uranium (HALEU) will be necessary for the SMR industry, and the IRA also provided funds to start a domestic HALEU program. 

This year, the US will add 55% more new electrical generation capacity than it did last year, nearly all of wind and solar.   New solar capacity in 2024 is expected to be double that of 2023, which was an all time record.  IRA production tax credits helped incentivize this, as did generous support for transmission connections and upgrades. 

Somewhat overlooked, but very importantly the IRA contained significant funding for energy efficiency improvements--which is the cheapest way to add capacity.

Not a single Republican voted for the IRA, of course.

For perspective…

And if Republicans had their way, that number would be 0%. Imagine how much bigger that slice could be if the Republicans weren’t such obstructionists.

Don’t you think if both parties weren’t sucking on the Big Oil teat that renewables would be bigger than coal? LOL at the current rate the world will explode in 2100 instead of 2099.

[Kris]

I don’t see the parties’ positions on climate and energy as “somewhat of a back seat”.  I’d call it a retrenchment or even capitulation. Our energy needs are growing exponentially and there are no solutions that our weak political parties can find traction on. Add typical politics and big $$ lobbying—and they’re stuck in the mud. We lack leadership.

Interesting take.   Under incentives provided by the Inflation Reduction Act, Diablo Canyon nuclear plant operational life is being extended, the Palisades nuclear plant is being restarted, and it sounds like Three Mile Island will be restarted under the same program. 

Terrapower's SMR broke ground in Wyoming, also with incentives provided by the IRA.    High Assay, Low Enriched Uranium (HALEU) will be necessary for the SMR industry, and the IRA also provided funds to start a domestic HALEU program. 

This year, the US will add 55% more new electrical generation capacity than it did last year, nearly all of wind and solar.   New solar capacity in 2024 is expected to be double that of 2023, which was an all time record.  IRA production tax credits helped incentivize this, as did generous support for transmission connections and upgrades. 

Somewhat overlooked, but very importantly the IRA contained significant funding for energy efficiency improvements--which is the cheapest way to add capacity.

Not a single Republican voted for the IRA, of course.

For perspective…

And if Republicans had their way, that number would be 0%. Imagine how much bigger that slice could be if the Republicans weren’t such obstructionists.

Don’t you think if both parties weren’t sucking on the Big Oil teat that renewables would be bigger than coal? LOL at the current rate the world will explode in 2100 instead of 2099.

Yeah, I do.

But one party is sucking much, much harder.

And the other party has a record of actually trying to do something about reducing our fossil fuel consumption. While the first party has a record of doing their damnedest to obstruct them at every turn.

[Taran Wanderer]

Why would the political party most attuned to profits and reduced tax burden for the rich want to support an energy supply that doesn’t require people to actually purchase the energy from someone?  Moving air (wind), falling water (hydro), rays of sun (solar), and ocean swells (wave energy) are free.  Yes, it costs money to build the generating stations and transmission.  Yes, they require public or private land for their location.  Yes, they require maintenance.  Yes, they are not without environmental and social impacts.  But fundamentally, underneath it all, the energy source is free.  That means people can get less rich on it.  If your focus is profits for a few, free energy is an awful idea.

[LennStar]

Every party should be interested in not destroying the livelihood of their voters. That tends to decrease turnout a lot.

The problem of course is that many people have been so indoctrinated that they think that e.g. the water will care about the fact that it is a liberal hoax.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Every party should be interested in not destroying the livelihood of their voters. That tends to decrease turnout a lot.

That was a significant factor in Hillary Clinton losing the election to Donald Trump in 2016.  Pennsylvania consistently voted Democrat until Clinton threatened to end their coal jobs.

When Europe went green, it shut down nuclear plants and relied on Russian energy.  Russia's invasion of Ukraine lead Europe to rely less on Russia - and fire up coal plants again.  Because they couldn't tolerate nuclear plants, they wound up using coal plants.

Solar power can certainly help with peak energy usage during a cloudless day, but it doesn't provide consistent energy (at night or cloudy).  Same with wind.  These two green energy sources can supplement power, but can't be the entire power mix.

[LennStar]

That was a significant factor in Hillary Clinton losing the election to Donald Trump in 2016.  Pennsylvania consistently voted Democrat until Clinton threatened to end their coal jobs.

Jobs are not livelihood. Or at least should not be. I was talking more about "anything still grows on fields" on so on.

When Europe went green, it shut down nuclear plants and relied on Russian energy.  Russia's invasion of Ukraine lead Europe to rely less on Russia - and fire up coal plants again.  Because they couldn't tolerate nuclear plants, they wound up using coal plants.

That is completely wrong. Granted, I don't know about the whole of Europe, but what I know about is Germany and France. Germany did give nuclear an extra 6 month run time with special permission. Anything longer would have taken at least a year for inspection and repairs and the energy companies would not have done it, because it would be too expensive.
As for the coal power, that was to replace nuclear power from France which was not produced due to safety problems.
And still with all that 2023 was Germany's "greenest" electricity year.

Solar power can certainly help with peak energy usage during a cloudless day, but it doesn't provide consistent energy (at night or cloudy).  Same with wind.  These two green energy sources can supplement power, but can't be the entire power mix.

Same with coal and nuclear, see above. There is a reason why "water batteries" have been build for a century now. (Literally, Germany's oldest is from 1923. DE: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nidderkraftwerk)
Yes, it's more complicated and more diversity with green energy, but as with the other diversity it's just a matter of if you are willing, not of possible.

[Telecaster]

Don’t you think if both parties weren’t sucking on the Big Oil teat that renewables would be bigger than coal? LOL at the current rate the world will explode in 2100 instead of 2099.

Laugh all you want, but no actually, I don't.  The operative phrase is your paragraph is "current rate" which you mentioned, but didn't examine.    Over the last few years the CAGR for new solar installation has been about 25% and wind has been about 10%.   As investors, we know that compound growth appears to be slow at first, but then appears to grow very fast indeed. 

This rate of growth means your statement is already wrong.   As of Q2 this year, non-hydro renewable electricity has exceeded coal, and that's not counting behind the meter installations.   If you include that, substantially more electricity is already being generated by non-hydro renewables than by coal.     

[Telecaster]

That is completely wrong. Granted, I don't know about the whole of Europe, but what I know about is Germany and France. Germany did give nuclear an extra 6 month run time with special permission. Anything longer would have taken at least a year for inspection and repairs and the energy companies would not have done it, because it would be too expensive.
As for the coal power, that was to replace nuclear power from France which was not produced due to safety problems.
And still with all that 2023 was Germany's "greenest" electricity year.

As I understand it, closing nuclear power plants in Germany was primarily a political decision. 

[Ron Scott]

Don’t you think if both parties weren’t sucking on the Big Oil teat that renewables would be bigger than coal? LOL at the current rate the world will explode in 2100 instead of 2099.

Laugh all you want, but no actually, I don't.  The operative phrase is your paragraph is "current rate" which you mentioned, but didn't examine.    Over the last few years the CAGR for new solar installation has been about 25% and wind has been about 10%.   As investors, we know that compound growth appears to be slow at first, but then appears to grow very fast indeed. 

This rate of growth means your statement is already wrong.   As of Q2 this year, non-hydro renewable electricity has exceeded coal, and that's not counting behind the meter installations.   If you include that, substantially more electricity is already being generated by non-hydro renewables than by coal.   

Well I’m still laughing, but I hope your trend projections are correct. I see a world in which the demand for energy is going to increase dramatically, where renewables do grow in use, but where fossil fuels use still continues to grow. We both see clean energy used more. But I don’t see a meaningful decline in fossil in our lifetimes. I see a crisis.

[JLee]

Don’t you think if both parties weren’t sucking on the Big Oil teat that renewables would be bigger than coal? LOL at the current rate the world will explode in 2100 instead of 2099.

Laugh all you want, but no actually, I don't.  The operative phrase is your paragraph is "current rate" which you mentioned, but didn't examine.    Over the last few years the CAGR for new solar installation has been about 25% and wind has been about 10%.   As investors, we know that compound growth appears to be slow at first, but then appears to grow very fast indeed. 

This rate of growth means your statement is already wrong.   As of Q2 this year, non-hydro renewable electricity has exceeded coal, and that's not counting behind the meter installations.   If you include that, substantially more electricity is already being generated by non-hydro renewables than by coal.   

Well I’m still laughing, but I hope your trend projections are correct. I see a world in which the demand for energy is going to increase dramatically, where renewables do grow in use, but where fossil fuels use still continues to grow. We both see clean energy used more. But I don’t see a meaningful decline in fossil in our lifetimes. I see a crisis.

Fossil fuel use in the US is trending down over the last two decades (and population is up ~15%).

https://www.statista.com/statistics/183617/us-energy-consumption-from-fossil-fuels-since-1985/

[Telecaster]

Well I’m still laughing, but I hope your trend projections are correct. I see a world in which the demand for energy is going to increase dramatically, where renewables do grow in use, but where fossil fuels use still continues to grow. We both see clean energy used more. But I don’t see a meaningful decline in fossil in our lifetimes. I see a crisis.

Interesting take.  Just out of curiosity, how did you come up with your estimate?  The reason I ask is I've been following this issue for some time now and EIA estimates fossil fuel demand will be stagnant or maybe even decline over the next 10 years in the US.   Most analysts think global fossil fuel demand will peak sometime around 2030-35.   BP estimates peak oil consumption may occur as early as next year.   

[Telecaster]

Fossil fuel use in the US is trending down over the last two decades (and population is up ~15%).

https://www.statista.com/statistics/183617/us-energy-consumption-from-fossil-fuels-since-1985/

I don't have the stats handy, but energy use in the US in general has been pretty flat over about the last two decades, even as the economy has grown.   That trend might be changing due to an enormous increase in demand for data center energy.    But almost all new generation is renewable, so I'm a bit puzzled about the projected growth in fossil fuels.  I don't understand what might be driving new demand.   

[dividendman]

NY Times poll shows Harris losing by 3+% in AZ, NV, GA, NC. I still think Trump is slightly favored or at worst 50-50 in this election.



edit: HA to GA typo

[Dancin'Dog]

NY Times poll shows Harris losing by 3+% in AZ, NV, HA, NC. I still think Trump is slightly favored or at worst 50-50 in this election.

Interesting, after "Eating dogs & cats" and "Black Nazi".  Almost makes you wonder about the validity of polls.  NC doesn't feel as Red as it has in the past.  MAGA flags aren't flying from pickup trucks & boats nearly as much as in the past here.  Maybe the support is there, but the pride sure isn't. 

[Financial.Velociraptor]

Regarding fossil v renewables:

I think commodity markets are going to result in more financing available for renewables.  It is really money that drives the energy picture as either approach needs an enormous amount of upfront capex spending.  In Oil and Gas markets (don't know about coal) you can lock in your commodity price up to about 36 months into the future at a reasonable cost.  With electricity, you can lock in hedges for decades worth of production and it is cheap. 

Renewable projects have a longer project useful life and just are a better fit for long term debt financing because they can make themselves immune to commodity price risk over the lifetime of the loan/project (assuming good duration matching).  I don't think renewables even need to continue falling in price (but it seems certain) because the big money is going to favor the lower risk bet.   Renewables are going to gain market share, rather permanently, every time interest rate are at 10 year lows. 

I'd be interested if any one has personal knowledge of how the economics on utility scale battery storage works.  Who is funding this and what is the equity/debt structure?  What interest rates are they getting?  If these projects have a longer life cycle than oil and gas wells, and they can ensure forward margins by buying off peak forward and selling back on peak forward as well; an enormous amount of leverage will be available to the biggest players.  With battery tech advancing at a terrifying pace and subsequent price per watt hour falling, the need for fossils to cope with intermittency seems to be a short term problem at most.

[LennStar]

That is completely wrong. Granted, I don't know about the whole of Europe, but what I know about is Germany and France. Germany did give nuclear an extra 6 month run time with special permission. Anything longer would have taken at least a year for inspection and repairs and the energy companies would not have done it, because it would be too expensive.
As for the coal power, that was to replace nuclear power from France which was not produced due to safety problems.
And still with all that 2023 was Germany's "greenest" electricity year.

As I understand it, closing nuclear power plants in Germany was primarily a political decision.

Yes, of course, as is the question if you build coal power plants or whatever.
The thing is that this was decided 12 years earlier in the latest iteration. (After Fukushima desaster.) I spare you the huge WP article on the back and forth over 30 years ;)
But that is the reason why such extensive checks and repairs would have been needed. Everything was planned to shut down, nothing was replaced and at end of lifetime or over.
Now, in those 12 years the conservatives also torpedoed solar (and wind) industry, literally destroying new power generation capacities from one year to the other (Here the solar power, can you guess which year CDU decided to have less new capacities because all those people or city owned power plants hurt the big energy companies too much? https://umweltinstitut.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/photovoltaik_in_deutschland-767x602.jpg)
China took over the industry. Without that we might not have needed the coal power in this decade.

[Telecaster]

I'd be interested if any one has personal knowledge of how the economics on utility scale battery storage works.  Who is funding this and what is the equity/debt structure?  What interest rates are they getting?  If these projects have a longer life cycle than oil and gas wells, and they can ensure forward margins by buying off peak forward and selling back on peak forward as well; an enormous amount of leverage will be available to the biggest players.  With battery tech advancing at a terrifying pace and subsequent price per watt hour falling, the need for fossils to cope with intermittency seems to be a short term problem at most.

The need is decreasing pretty fast, that's for sure.  I don't know exactly what the economics are but you pointed out the advantage.   You can store energy when it is cheap and the release it during peak hours when the rates are the highest.   With the price of batteries falling it now makes tons of economic sense to use battery storage instead of peaker plants in many locations, primarily Texas and California that have lots of renewables.   Utility scale battery storage capacity will likely nearly double this year.

[partgypsy]

Trying to figure out how the candidates are planning to deal with energy production and climate management is tricky.

Trump is most likely burn baby burn, but I’m sure Elon’s got him soft on electric cars.

Harris has promised not to interfere with fracking so I guess she’ll keep that promise.

Meanwhile—while renewables are getting better and cheaper, fossil is still strong and probably growing. And AI/big tech are planning mega-energy usage wherever they can get it.

FWIW—Bill Gates just bought all the production for 20 years on a 3 Mile Island restart. Fun!

Not BG but MS, to power their AI.
Because 3 of those are not enough for good results.

Oh, OK. I heard a podcast with Gates and assumed.

Anyway, I think the fossil lobby has played the parties like a fiddle this time. NO ONE wants to cross them in the national elections…

Fossil fuel issues have taken somewhat of a back seat in this election cycle because there are some issues with much higher immediate salience.

I don’t see the parties’ positions on climate and energy as “somewhat of a back seat”.  I’d call it a retrenchment or even capitulation. Our energy needs are growing exponentially and there are no solutions that our weak political parties can find traction on. Add typical politics and big $$ lobbying—and they’re stuck in the mud. We lack leadership.

when Trump got into office he removed the white house.gov page about climate change. In May he attended a fundraiser in Texas organized by 3 oil execs. If elected he promised them the moon and stars, and also dismantle the competition. Needless to state this would make our energy grid more fragile, prone to shocks and shortages, and increase prices. And we would fall off a cliff once oil runs out. Trump is also firmly against ANY initiatives that conserve or save energy.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/05/23/trump-oil-industry-pipelines-campaign-money/

[Financial.Velociraptor]

I'd be interested if any one has personal knowledge of how the economics on utility scale battery storage works.  Who is funding this and what is the equity/debt structure?  What interest rates are they getting?  If these projects have a longer life cycle than oil and gas wells, and they can ensure forward margins by buying off peak forward and selling back on peak forward as well; an enormous amount of leverage will be available to the biggest players.  With battery tech advancing at a terrifying pace and subsequent price per watt hour falling, the need for fossils to cope with intermittency seems to be a short term problem at most.

The need is decreasing pretty fast, that's for sure.  I don't know exactly what the economics are but you pointed out the advantage.   You can store energy when it is cheap and the release it during peak hours when the rates are the highest.   With the price of batteries falling it now makes tons of economic sense to use battery storage instead of peaker plants in many locations, primarily Texas and California that have lots of renewables.   Utility scale battery storage capacity will likely nearly double this year.

The futures markets matter here too.  If you need, just to pick a round number, 80% capacity to a battery system utilized to break even, you can enter forward purchase and sales agreements for different times of the day and exploit the duck curve to ensure your bond holders they will get paid in full.  That is, you can lock in break even revenue at the time of installation for the life of the project.  This lowers interest rates and improves margins further.  The remaining 20% can be opportunistically used to buy/sell at spot pricing. 

This would correspond nicely to what the oil and gas companies do where most of them hedge at least 80% of expected production before a well is even drilled.

[bacchi]

when Trump got into office he removed the white house.gov page about climate change. In May he attended a fundraiser in Texas organized by 3 oil execs. If elected he promised them the moon and stars, and also dismantle the competition. Needless to state this would make our energy grid more fragile, prone to shocks and shortages, and increase prices. And we would fall off a cliff once oil runs out. Trump is also firmly against ANY initiatives that conserve or save energy.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/05/23/trump-oil-industry-pipelines-campaign-money/

Why is the Republican party so scared of energy independence? ;)

[bacchi]

NY Times poll shows Harris losing by 3+% in AZ, NV, HA, NC. I still think Trump is slightly favored or at worst 50-50 in this election.

Interesting, after "Eating dogs & cats" and "Black Nazi".  Almost makes you wonder about the validity of polls.  NC doesn't feel as Red as it has in the past.  MAGA flags aren't flying from pickup trucks & boats nearly as much as in the past here.  Maybe the support is there, but the pride sure isn't.

The 538 poll aggregator has:

AZ Trump +1.1*
NV Harris +0.8
GA Trump +1.4*
NC Trump +0.6*


* These states have the Sept. 17-21 NYT/Siena poll listed multiple times, sometimes with different numbers (NC has Trump +1, +2, EVEN, +2 for example). I don't know if that throws off the formula.

It'll be interesting to see if Robinson's NC campaign depresses the polls or turnout for the Republicans.

[Just Joe]

Same with coal and nuclear, see above. There is a reason why "water batteries" have been build for a century now. (Literally, Germany's oldest is from 1923. DE: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nidderkraftwerk)
Yes, it's more complicated and more diversity with green energy, but as with the other diversity it's just a matter of if you are willing, not of possible.

We do this in the states too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raccoon_Mountain_Pumped-Storage_Plant

[Ron Scott]

when Trump got into office he removed the white house.gov page about climate change. In May he attended a fundraiser in Texas organized by 3 oil execs. If elected he promised them the moon and stars, and also dismantle the competition. Needless to state this would make our energy grid more fragile, prone to shocks and shortages, and increase prices. And we would fall off a cliff once oil runs out. Trump is also firmly against ANY initiatives that conserve or save energy.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/05/23/trump-oil-industry-pipelines-campaign-money/

Why is the Republican party so scared of energy independence? ;)

They are not scared.

The US political parties have rigged the system as a pay to play game. There’s a fortune to be had if you play it right. The oil companies give to both parties, but much more the republicans.

[Just Joe]

Now, in those 12 years the conservatives also torpedoed solar (and wind) industry, literally destroying new power generation capacities from one year to the other (Here the solar power, can you guess which year CDU decided to have less new capacities because all those people or city owned power plants hurt the big energy companies too much? https://umweltinstitut.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/photovoltaik_in_deutschland-767x602.jpg)
China took over the industry. Without that we might not have needed the coal power in this decade.

Its interesting that the conservatives' stubborn grasp on the status quo might represent a liability to an economy.

Example: resist EVs for so long that eventually China steps in and wallops the USDM auto industry with low prices or more creative products.

Example: resist "green tech" in the US for longer than is wise until suppliers can't establish itself here so we end up importing green tech from China. 

Meanwhile "socialism" is characterized as the monster under the bed while resisting progress ends up feeding and growing Chinese communism.

[Financial.Velociraptor]

NY Times poll shows Harris losing by 3+% in AZ, NV, HA, NC. I still think Trump is slightly favored or at worst 50-50 in this election.

Interesting, after "Eating dogs & cats" and "Black Nazi".  Almost makes you wonder about the validity of polls.  NC doesn't feel as Red as it has in the past.  MAGA flags aren't flying from pickup trucks & boats nearly as much as in the past here.  Maybe the support is there, but the pride sure isn't.

The 538 poll aggregator has:

AZ Trump +1.1*
NV Harris +0.8
GA Trump +1.4*
NC Trump +0.6*


* These states have the Sept. 17-21 NYT/Siena poll listed multiple times, sometimes with different numbers (NC has Trump +1, +2, EVEN, +2 for example). I don't know if that throws off the formula.

It'll be interesting to see if Robinson's NC campaign depresses the polls or turnout for the Republicans.

Recent months have seen high registration numbers for under 30 first time voters.  I assume they still lean "woke".  Does anyone have state by state polling data broken down further by age cohort?

We have been undercounting Trump for a long time.  But not counting young people basically at all.  Is this material in this cycle?

[Telecaster]

Its interesting that the conservatives' stubborn grasp on the status quo might represent a liability to an economy.

Example: resist EVs for so long that eventually China steps in and wallops the USDM auto industry with low prices or more creative products.

Example: resist "green tech" in the US for longer than is wise until suppliers can't establish itself here so we end up importing green tech from China. 

Meanwhile "socialism" is characterized as the monster under the bed while resisting progress ends up feeding and growing Chinese communism.

There is no question it is a threat to the economy.   Since WWII nearly all recessions have either been caused by or exacerbated by a spike in oil prices.   Our economy is dependent on oil, there is no way around it.   One solution is to fight endless wars in the Middle East and support unsavory foreign governments in hopes of keep oil prices stable.   Besides being very expensive, it is debatable how well this approach works.

Another approach is to move the economy away from oil.     A great success story in this regard is CAFE standards.   Today's cars are vastly more efficient than cars not-so-many years ago.  As a consequence the US reached peak petroleum consumption about 20 years ago, despite the growing number of cars.   This has made our economy slightly more resilient while saving consumers enormous amounts of money.   But CAFE standards are a Republican boogeyman and accordingly Trump rolled back CAFE standards almost on his first day in office.   Fortunately most automakers had already made plans based on the existing standards and there wasn't much practical effect.   

Regardless, it is clear that our economic security dictates we must move away from a petroleum-based economy, but one party is consistently against it.   

[ChpBstrd]

Its interesting that the conservatives' stubborn grasp on the status quo might represent a liability to an economy.

Example: resist EVs for so long that eventually China steps in and wallops the USDM auto industry with low prices or more creative products.

Example: resist "green tech" in the US for longer than is wise until suppliers can't establish itself here so we end up importing green tech from China. 

Meanwhile "socialism" is characterized as the monster under the bed while resisting progress ends up feeding and growing Chinese communism.

+1 on this well-written thought. Maybe their approach is simply a resistance to any good idea.

[twinstudy]

NY Times poll shows Harris losing by 3+% in AZ, NV, GA, NC. I still think Trump is slightly favored or at worst 50-50 in this election.

Genuinely cannot understand why anyone with an IQ over 105 would ever vote for Trump, besides having a financial interest in, say, the oil and gas industry. That is the only explicable reason.

Even if you are an arch neoliberal - like me - the Republicans' policies do not promote meritocracy and are not likely to bolster the economy. Nor do they bolster competition. And of course the social policies are literal fascism.

Here in Australia I can understand the allure of every substantial political party, even if I don't agree with their policies. Can't say the same about Republicans.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

NY Times poll shows Harris losing by 3+% in AZ, NV, GA, NC. I still think Trump is slightly favored or at worst 50-50 in this election.

Genuinely cannot understand why anyone with an IQ over 105 would ever vote for Trump, besides having a financial interest in, say, the oil and gas industry. That is the only explicable reason.

People you don't understand are stupid, which is the only explicable reason?
I think you have one of those "blind spots" you mentioned earlier.

Everyone has blind spots. Not just Trump supporters.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Now, in those 12 years the conservatives also torpedoed solar (and wind) industry, literally destroying new power generation capacities from one year to the other (Here the solar power, can you guess which year CDU decided to have less new capacities because all those people or city owned power plants hurt the big energy companies too much? https://umweltinstitut.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/photovoltaik_in_deutschland-767x602.jpg)
China took over the industry. Without that we might not have needed the coal power in this decade.

Example: resist "green tech" in the US for longer than is wise until suppliers can't establish itself here so we end up importing green tech from China. 

Both Germany's and America's solar panel manufacturing were devastated by cheap Chinese solar panels.  From a few articles, it seems like China is pulling the same trick Japan did on the auto industry back in the 1980s: dumping goods on the market to gain a near monopoly.  Tariffs can lead to trade wars, where both countries hurt their respective economies.  But when solar panels are subsidized by China, that unfair benefit may deserve a tariff to level the playing field.

Billions of dollars worth of state subsidies and incentives have helped China dominate the global solar industry. The country now accounts for 80% of global module capacity.

But that dominance has come at a price — industry overcapacity has fuelled a steep plunge in prices of solar cells and modules, with no end in sight.

https://www.asiafinancial.com/china-solar-panel-makers-want-beijing-to-stop-over-investment

China’s Solar Firms Are Surviving on CCP Subsidies
...
* The Chinese solar industry is currently losing millions of dollars a year.
* It is kept in business by massive financial support from the Chinese Communist government.

https://prosperousamerica.org/chinas-solar-firms-are-surviving-on-ccp-subsidies/

(from their "about" page: "CPA is the only national non-profit organization representing exclusively domestic producers across many sectors and industries of the U.S. economy")

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

NY Times poll shows Harris losing by 3+% in AZ, NV, GA, NC. I still think Trump is slightly favored or at worst 50-50 in this election.

Genuinely cannot understand why anyone with an IQ over 105 would ever vote for Trump, besides having a financial interest in, say, the oil and gas industry. That is the only explicable reason.

Even if you are an arch neoliberal - like me - the Republicans' policies do not promote meritocracy and are not likely to bolster the economy. Nor do they bolster competition. And of course the social policies are literal fascism.

Here in Australia I can understand the allure of every substantial political party, even if I don't agree with their policies. Can't say the same about Republicans.

From talking to "average" non politically intense people recently, I think inflation is a big driver.

[Ron Scott]

Today's cars are vastly more efficient than cars not-so-many years ago.  As a consequence the US reached peak petroleum consumption about 20 years ago, despite the growing number of cars.     

A little perspective:

1. The US consumed a peak 20.8 million barrels of oil per day in 2005, but for the past several years, we have consumed ~19 million barrels of oil per day. No drama here.
2. Global oil production was 96.4 million barrels per day in 2023–an all time high.
3. Global energy consumption is projected to increase by nearly 50% by 2050. Oil usage will GROW during this period—NOT DECLINE.

There is a market for hope around oil use that belies the trend. Don’t buy it.