GE Cuts 12,000 Jobs In Response To Falling Demand For Fossil Fuel Energy (qz.com) 146
In response to the drop in demand for fossil fuel energy, General Electric -- the world's largest maker of gas turbines -- announced plans to cut 12,000 jobs. Quartz reports: Those cuts will mostly come from GE's power division, which makes energy-generation technologies. The reduction will account for 18% of the division's workforce and affect both professional and production employees, the company said in a statement. The majority of job losses will occur outside the U.S., Bloomberg reports. In a statement, Russell Stokes, the division's president and CEO, said disruptions to the power market were "driving significantly lower volumes in products and services." Demand for GE's power-generation equipment has stalled in part because of renewable energy growth, says Robert McCarthy, an analyst at Stifel Financial.
The move is part of a larger restructuring effort under GE's new chief executive John Flannery, who has faced immense pressure to regain the company's footing since taking the helm in June of this year. GE's stock price plunged 44% this year, the worst performer on the Dow, according to Bloomberg. The company aims to cut $3.5 billion of expenses across its divisions by the end of 2018, including a $1 billion cut from the power division.
The move is part of a larger restructuring effort under GE's new chief executive John Flannery, who has faced immense pressure to regain the company's footing since taking the helm in June of this year. GE's stock price plunged 44% this year, the worst performer on the Dow, according to Bloomberg. The company aims to cut $3.5 billion of expenses across its divisions by the end of 2018, including a $1 billion cut from the power division.
Holy shit! (Score:3, Funny)
They just bought a large part of it (Score:4, Informative)
A large part of General Electric's power division consists of the former power division of Alstom that was bought by GE in 2015 for € 12.4 billion. Alstom may have made a much better deal than it seemed at the time.
Re:They just bought a large part of it (Score:4, Insightful)
Probably true, but gas turbines can be useful even in green energy sector, so don't count them out yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Though thousands of employees were added due to this acquisition and others [gerenewableenergy.com], GE is balancing operations to account for the growing market in wind power generation and the tailspin of the natural gas market.
Natural gas supplies have increased dramatically in the past decade due in large part to innovative fracking technology, and the price of the gas has fallen precipitously. [macrotrends.net]
Producers are flaring the gas off near producing fields rather than piping it to market.
Re: They just bought a large part of it (Score:1)
Well that's dumb they could have mined bitcoin with the flare gas. /sarcasm
Re: (Score:2)
Producers are flaring the gas off near producing fields rather than piping it to market.
I remember hearing something about long ago it was common practice for oil and gas companies to use this gas to run generators. The refineries and drills needed electricity to run so it made sense to burn this gas if they could to make electricity since it was not economical to do anything else with it. This became the norm to the point that these oil and gas companies has a surplus of electricity. These companies wanted to make the best of their resources so they made deals with utilities and businesses
Re: (Score:2)
There have been attempts in the past to use the produced gas to power the pumpjacks [youtube.com] and I'm not certain why the vast majority are plumbed into the grid rather than relying on energy produced right at the wellhead.
Re: (Score:3)
True but their existing power business was already quite large. GE has been a tech leader in turbines for many decades. This shows up not only in power gen, but also in aviation.
GE's core businesses going forward will be power (stagnant, but a global leader); healthcare (steady as long as people keep getting older); and aviation (continuous steady growth and the jewel in the crown).
In re the Alstom deal, remember all the hoops Jeff had to go through to get that deal done? Flying to Paris to stroke Macron's
Re: (Score:2)
GE's core businesses going forward will be power (stagnant, but a global leader); healthcare (steady as long as people keep getting older); and aviation (continuous steady growth and the jewel in the crown)
I think they do OK in train locomotives. I think them vs. EMD are the largest makers for at least the NA market.
Re: (Score:2)
The railway business is called GE Transportation, and it is healthy. It's also stagnant, so watch for Flannery to look at selling it off.
Re: (Score:3)
I never talked to him about his plans to leave, but what you're saying is certainly possible. The "GE Digital" concept is actually very sound, and involved collecting all IT-related activities into a separate BU, headquarted in San Ramon in the East Bay. I would say that Bill Ruh, recruited in by Jeff, was a big driver here. I found it intriguing that of all the BUs at the time, only one was able to resist giving up its own IT resources, and that BU was healthcare.
Not sure if by "moving company headquarters
Re: They just bought a large part of it (Score:2)
Under the new tax plan they would get a refund.
Is the "greenification" the real reason? (Score:5, Insightful)
That would be a nice indication of progress of our society.
However, this might the "public" explanation which looks good in media.
I can think of two other reasons, which are less flattering for GE; 1) GE fails to be competitive for this type of equipment (for various reasons), or 2) the market for gas turbines shrinks, maybe due to the very high operational costs of gas turbines (they are very expensive to run, for at least electric power generation)
Re: (Score:2)
I can think of two other reasons, which are less flattering for GE; 1) GE fails to be competitive for this type of equipment (for various reasons), or 2) the market for gas turbines shrinks, maybe due to the very high operational costs of gas turbines (they are very expensive to run, for at least electric power generation)
2) is exactly what they said. The market for gas turbines is shrinking due to altpower's competitive advantages (they are less expensive to run, for at least electric power generation.) That's not an "other reason", that's the same reason. You're not contradicting them. You are not cleverer than GE.
Re: (Score:2)
...not the only way to make electricity from natural gas. Nor are they the most efficient in terms of power generated from a given volume of gas
They're currently at ~62%. That's pretty damn high in my book. What is more efficient, in your opinion?
Re: (Score:2)
62% of the lower heating value or net calorific value. Counting like that allows modern power plants to reach combined efficiencies over 100% when they do district heating as well.
However, it is still a really good value even if I think it is cheating. Only fuel cells are likely to do significantly better, and they are not really viable yet. Maybe they will never be viable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
~62% is for a combined cycle plant, not a standalone turbine.
The best you can get out of a standalone turbine is about 32%, increasing to about 35% if you add a recuperator (the advantage of a recuperator is that efficiency at part-throttle is vastly improved, making them more applicable for ships than power generation)
CCGT drives steam turbines from the heat of the exhaust stream. You could add Stirling engines to recover energy from what's left after that but cost:benefit falls away rapidly.
Re: (Score:2)
Most modern systems get 90% or better. Modern furnaces are 97% efficient
Apples to oranges. It makes no sense to compare a furnace to a system for converting chemical energy into electricity. What other such system makes significantly better use of the input energy?
If fossil fuels are going to survive in even a limited fashion they're going to have to catch up.
This is not even about fossil fuels. A modern gas turbine even competes with fuel cells in efficiency, but solidly beats them on price. Which is why efficient gas turbines might easily survive if we switch to massive generation of synthetic hydrogen in the future - they achieve the same goal but more cheaply.
Re: (Score:2)
The only way to produce mass quantities of "synthetic" hydrogen is with a nuclear source.
At that point you may as well just go ahead and generate electricity directly, tacking on some carbon atoms to the hydrogen to make synthetic liquid fuels for applications where you need mobility and energy density beyond that which can be provided by batteries (IE: aircraft)
Yes, you could setup hydrogen pipelines or repurpose existing natural gas distribution lines, but raw hydrogen is a bitch to handle due to the embr
Re: (Score:3)
The market is shrinking. Like GE, Siemens, a major competitor of GE, is also reducing their engagement. In addition Siemens is also reducing steam turbine capacities, as turbines for coal and nuclear plants are in less demand.
Re: (Score:2)
"Siemens is also reducing steam turbine capacities"
This is a mistake.
The long-term demand is going to be for high capacity steam or other gas turbines driven by molten salt nuclear reactors and in the meantime steam demand is likely to increase due to an increase in the conventional nuclear fleet.
Reasoning: Renewables (Wind and solar PV) are a nice scam, but at best and assuming all planning objections are overrriddden so you build everywhere you can, they can collectively only just match the electrical out
Re: (Score:2)
Ehm no. Renewables are quite reliable. That might be in contradiction to your world view, but fortunately reality is different. However, molten salt nuclear reactors are decades away from any real application and they still have this nasty recycling problem.
Siemens and GE are for profit corporations. If they see a demand in an area they will invest and expand business there. However, business for these large turbines is going down. This includes steam and gas turbines. Therefore, they reduce capacity. Maybe
Re: (Score:2)
Renewables are reliable collectively. The problem is production volumes.
Renewables can just about match existing carbon-sourced electricity production.
Electricity only accounts for 30-40% of carbon emissions.
Replacing those carbon using processes with electrical or other sources will result in a 6-8 fold increase in generation requirements.
How do you propose filling that gap?
As for the recycling problem: A conventional 800MWe nuclear plant over its 60-year lifespan produces a a lot of high level waste - eno
Market saturation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed - the headline could have just as easily read: "Over the last 5 years, GE has failed to adapt to changing market conditions".
Ultimately, GE's failed to perform. They're saying something that sounds plausible, and is 'du jour', but the truth of it goes back several years when they should have started to develop alternative products. It's not like we've had any drop in energy demand, so "energy' is still a growth market.
Sad (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't it be great if instead of laying them off they retrained them to build renewable products and invested heavily in the future?
Re: (Score:2)
Where's the profit in THAT ?? Disposable, high-maintenance items are good for the bottom line. . . as long as you're selling. . .
Re: (Score:2)
As an employee, you should always be flexible, and train new skills to keep you market viability, nobody owes you a job, but you're owed an opportunity to have one. Never a guarantee.
Re: (Score:3)
In other words treat human beings as disposable tools to be discarded the moment they no longer suit your needs.
Re: (Score:2)
Am I owed a job? I'm owed an opportunity to a job, and if the company can afford retraining that can help me, but I can't -- expect -- to receive retraining. Those who trained on their own are immediately more valuable as they have the skills without having to be trained. Not
Re: (Score:3)
Wouldn't it be great if instead of laying them off they retrained them to build renewable products and invested heavily in the future?
Thanks, I needed a good laugh on a dull Friday afternoon.
Re: (Score:2)
(Googles it)
1980 at least. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
What about the engineers who are already unemployed? Don't they get a shot at getting back on their feet?
What we really need is some kind of social safety net [johnmoserforcongress.com] that helps keep these people stable while they transition through the turmoil of economic change, and gives them a portion of our new growth--because they're unemployed, yes, and they got that way by being in the path of progress. Thanks for keeping the lights running for us all these years, and now your time is over; find somewhere else to be--ma
Really? (Score:1)
Natural Gas (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Natural gas is a fossil fuel, that is cheaper to extract, burns cleaner than coal, and is plentiful, and in general requires less workers to extract than coal or oil.
You have the gift of understatement! Anyhow, that's spot on. Natgas is a transition fuel, and a cleaner alternative until the technology involved in the alternatives is more mature.
Some folks look at it as the devil itself, but this will allow humans to transition to clean energy without distrupting the word's economy.
Re: (Score:2)
The main issue with solar and wind, the main replacements for fossil fuels, is that their output is affected by weather conditions
In the area I live in, we use a lot of wind power. Enough power that depending on demand, turbines will switch on and off to meet it or reserve their output.
And where they are, the wind is basically constant. This is along the Allegheny Front. Which has a huge influence on weather patterns. It can be a still hot day down here in the valley, but the turbines still turn.
Solar is certainly feasible, but at the moment it is more on the individual scale, which I really like. Off-gridding, and yeah, storage
Re: (Score:2)
You need something like a capacitor. Maybe Recouperative Compressed Air Energy Storage.
Re: (Score:2)
Compressed air falls to Boyle's law - in both directions.
What I mean by that is that when you compress gas it gets hot - and at the pressures involved for storage that can be enough to damage components/piping, so you have to toss heat overboard. You'll want to do this anyway to reduce the pressures.
When you decompress it, it gets cold, and cold gas has lower volume, so you lose out substantially on the entire pressurisation cycle (this is why compressed gas cars are a scam)
Recuperation systems (storing the
Re: (Score:2)
Recuperation systems (storing the compression heat and reinjecting it upon decompression) are a nice idea but not practical - some quick calculations of the energy involved will point to the volumes of well-insulated thermal storage required being "difficult" at best at multi MW scales.
I said the same thing about electric cars.
There's a thousand-mWh adiabatic CAES plant in Germany, with around 300MW output capacity, but it's lagging: the plant was supposed to come online in 2016. It hasn't been canceled, and they still claim they're going to bring it up with about 70% efficiency (practical peak efficiency should be around 90%, with theoretical at 100%, but this plant won't do that).
Re: (Score:2)
The key is in the name. Adibiatic means it's pulling/pushing heat from somewhere (presumably a river?)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
power stations with diesel generators
No. Just no. Diesel generators are fine for backup for a data center, they are useless for grid use. Oil is just too expensive for that kind of thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Diesel generators work quite well on natural gas(*) and are more efficient than open cycle turbines, plus handle variable loading better. That's why many utilities keep their ancient creaky standby diesels maintained even though they're only run a few times per year.
(*) Dedicated gas engines are more optimised for this use but diesels can be adapted with only a slight loss of efficiency. It's cheaper to adapt than install new engines for the amount of work these engines are now doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Solar is predictable at a grid level days in advance, at least +/- 10%. Wind isn’t, even 4 hours in advance. The only issue I can think of that might hurt GE is their turbine ramp times, because the need today is for GW or natural gas that can go from 0-100% in minutes, the same for 100-0%, all while being economical to run.
I can see how the US will get to 50% renewable energy, but going beyond that will take more than lithium batteries and pumped hydro.
Re: (Score:2)
Solar is predictable at a grid level days in advance, at least +/- 10%. Wind isn’t, even 4 hours in advance.
Depends on where you are. Along the Allegheny front here in PA, the wind is FAIAP, constant..
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting point. I can't find PA data, but NYISO does look steady for the last two days, varying from a peak of 923MW to a minimum of 430MW in the course of two hours.
I watch California much more closely, and they will regularly vary from 0.5GW to 5GW over the course of the day. I don't know how closely they match one-hour and 24-hour forecasts, but there is a high intra-day and inter-day variability that does make planning a challenge.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually found pjm; they have good historical data available which is great. Past week variability is from a peak of around 6GW to a minimum of 0.2GW. It isn't what you can build a grid around without significant storage or non-renewable sources.
Re: (Score:2)
Open cycle gas turbines can cover the peaks and dips but they're not efficient compared to combined cycle plants.
Conventional nuclear plants can peak-follow if you have enough of them so that you don't dip into neutron poisoning territory or can ride it out.
Molten salt nuclear plants can peak-follow trivially, because neutron poisons (primarily xenon gas) pop out of the fuel salts and can be sequestered until they break down (at that point you can reinject the products for further breakdown or store until s
Re:Really? (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe Asia, but solar is offline across NA, SA, Europe, Africa and Australia for most of the night, as they don't span enough of the solar footprint - especially in winter months.
And yet they have solar installations even in Alaska, where the nights get pretty long. Obviously it isn't much use in the dark months, but they save a lot of money, and conserve their diesel fuel for the times its desperately needed.
The technical issues of utilizing solar are largely overrated, and shrinking constantly.
I wonder how many voted for Trump (Score:1)
Too bad, huh? Clinton was such a globalist, right?
Re: (Score:1)
I hope the nightmare will be over in three years.
other work? (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe they can all find work in companies working in the renewable energy sector? Like this one: https://www.gerenewableenergy.... [gerenewableenergy.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Issues affecting the power industry (Score:2, Informative)
1) growth rate of demand is down. Historically, the US could rely on an average 2% growth of peak load a year. That pattern halted in 2007, thanks to the economic downturn plus energy efficiency plus load response programs. In 2017 we have only matched 2008 peak load in the US.
2) extended life of existing plants. In a regulated industry, you overhaul a couple of times and replace with new tech. With deregulation, everyone is squeezing life and extra MW out of everything
3) increased renewable. Wind an
But but but (Score:1)
Green power can't be the cause. Trump is bringing back the coal jobs!
Re: (Score:3)
U.S. exports coal too, and that has been *growing* since 2016. A lot of the world's electricity comes from coal and will for years. Here in my state half the electricity comes from nuclear, and 40% from coal. I agree that carbon pollution is bad, but that's the way it is.
Natural Selection (Score:5, Interesting)
There have been so many indicators of a shift away from fossil fuels that no company operating in that market sector - and certainly not a company as large or well established as GE, can have any excuse for not being aware of this fact.
The failure of GE to anticipate this market shift and adjust their corporate strategy to accommodate it would be the responsibility of John Flannery's predecessor, Jeff Immelt and the board of Directors that he led. Whilst unforgivable, it is certainly not the first time that we've witnessed such corporate hubris. Look at what happened to Kodak as a result of the "digital revolution" for example.
The most egregious aspect of this story is the one that doesn't seem to be explored properly: the fact that 12,000 people have lost their jobs because of utterly incompetent management. And what happens to those incompetent managers? In the case of Immelt, at 61 he stepped down from the CEO role and planned to continue as Chairman to the end of this year, but got pushed out of that by Flannery on October 2nd. Not a moment too soon, looking at this mess. So Immelt will cruise into retirement with a massive 401k, not to mention all the stock options he's had over the years. A shame that 12,000 families are now going to pay the price for his incompetence.
I'm sure that they are different at a detail level, but at a *scale* level there have to be parallels between the manufacture of turbine blades used in fossil fuel power generation and the technologies used for wind or hydro power generation. Why didn't GE begin a ramp-up into those emerging technologies when they had the time and revenue to carry it? This article headline should have read, "Over the last 18 months, GE have switched 12,000 Jobs from Fossil Fuel to Renewable Energy Technologies".
The fact that it doesn't should herald a managerial bloodbath, and the installation of a competent board of directors. Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
In fairness to GE, in the power space we're faced with basically a freeze on new power generation capacity. It's hard enough to replace what we're retiring, but new plants are subject to so much political scrutiny. One side wants the cleanest per kWh, the practicality and the pollution caused in construction be damned; the other seems to want the dirtiest possible power as a form of perverse value signalling to their horribly misinformed base.
The result is that nothing much gets built, and when it does it's
Re: (Score:3)
"Over the last 18 months, GE have switched 12,000 Jobs from Fossil Fuel to Renewable Energy Technologies".
GE or no GE the jobs switched to renewables. If GE is not there, some other renewable company will employ them.
Re: (Score:1)
GE already makes wind turbines. You might want to look it up before posting.
GE fully anticipated this because sales in fossil fuel power generation products and services has been stagnating for a while. They are just cleaning house to remove deadwood and do some early retirement.
I assure you they will be selling gas turbines and steam turbines for several decades more at least. There is no reason to believe renewables will grab more than 10% market share right now, and Americans do like their electricity
Re: (Score:2)
Re-structuring excuses. GE starting layoffs like a year ago. I know my city lost several hundred jobs already before this announcement. This is merely justification to continue.
Are gas turbines all that different from wind turbines? Scale to be sure, and the component that burns fuel. In the end it is a spinney magnet that generates electricity.
I'm guessing that's an excuse (Score:3)
Slight of hand (Score:1)
Not paying any taxes was not leaving enough in the kitty.
No worries, however, all of those laid off can find jobs in solar, if they want to see if the PRC is willing to pick them up.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, executive cash compensation in large companies amounts to very little per employee. At Sinclair, it's $112 per employee per year for the CEO; at Ford, it's $22.50, or around $65 if you only count American employees.
At GE, the CEO gets $33.03 per employee per year. If they just made the next round of wage raises 1 penny lower for everyone—you get $1.99/hr more this year instead of $2/hr—they could pay out $5.9 million in additional executive bonuses.
Re: (Score:1)
Also some studies show that layoffs are tied to executive compensation.
Study Finds CEO Salaries Increase With Layoffs [truth-out.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Potentially true, for performance-related reasons; however, that doesn't tie the lay-offs to making room in the budget.
Generally speaking, if your layoffs eliminate employees who produce more revenue than their payrolls, you're losing profits. Layoffs are a legitimate and important part of business when your business fails to expand to take advantage of new market opportunities; it's cheaper and more-efficient to instead transition your existing employees into new roles, as that retains a lot of organiza
Re: (Score:2)
Oh we know the new tax bill will just lead to more dividends and stock buybacks, not higher wages. Higher wages means higher prices, and he who doth not raise prices competes better and makes more profit. Executive compensation is actually negligible--it's pennies per hour per employee for big, high-dollar companies; it's only small businesses with CEOs making $150k or so that pay thousands per employee to their executives. All in all, though, the tax bill is a giant corporate give-away and enormously i
Re: (Score:2)
What about the layoffs at GE? A corporation making record profits and benefiting from enough loopholes so they have not had to pay taxes in almost a decade?
GE has a bunch of gas turbine business scaled to meet demand of a growing natural gas power generation market. That market is no longer expanding rapidly, so the orders are smaller. If you sell 10,000 turbines per year between 2005 and 2015, and then 2,000 between 2016 and 2017, well... 80% of your line employees are idle, sitting around doing nothing, sucking payroll. What do you do with them?
Answer: you either expand into a new market and somehow use their skill, or you send them off with a pink sli
Which is false (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
but will the Chinese be using GE turbines for that which is to be built, or will they do their very typical thing of reverse engineering turbines they've bought in the past so they can make their own in the future. I'm betting on the latter
Re: Which is false (Score:2)
Must you troll this in every topic? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It seems many of the formerly planned coal plants have been suspended or cancelled [reuters.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
China is also building shedloads of nuclear plants.
The coal plants being built are mostly to handle immediate demand or to replace older inefficient ones. Either way the intent is that they won't be running for 60-70 years.
Adapt or Die (Score:1)
Look, your old fossil fuel energy is .. just plain overpriced and inefficient.
It's hard to transport without explosions.
It requires capital investments that only last a few years and then get thrown away.
Meanwhile, renewables like solar wind and biofuels tend to last 20-100 years in operation, can be easily moved, don't explode, kill far fewer animals and birds than all fossil fuels do, and don't endanger expensive urban areas with giant explosions that kill thousands and destroy billions of dollars of inve
Build wind turbines and solar panels. (Score:2)
Thatâ(TM)s right. Forward thinking companies did that first. Dinosaurs died out for a reason. So do dinosaur companies.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Only $1B of the $3.5B in cuts is in the power division, so to claim it is all due to response to falling fossil demand is incorrect or disingenuous. But accuracy isn't really something slashdot has cared about it some time.
Re: (Score:2)
They really have less orders for turbines just like Siemens. The market is shrinking because less new coal and gas power plants are build than anticipated.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:"Falling Demand For Fossil Fuel Energy" (Score:4, Insightful)
I doubt GE is thinking like that. GE tends to live in these bubbles, where stresses and problems in the market don't show up to them until the last minute, then they need to do dramatic changes. Being GE wants to be #1 or #2 in the market if not they will sell and close off the unit, the people working in stressed units will manipulate as much data to show how they are #1 or #2 until it is obvious there is a problem, and fixes earlier on do not happen.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure, but I don't thing GE is much involved in making the generators on top of electricity generating windmills.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What will it do to GE when I implement my program to transition our $2Bn/year Conservation Reserve Program farm subsidies to a Conservation Reserve and Energy Production Program?
I plan to protect our reserve agricultural land--land on which we pay farmers to not farm--by placing non-permanent (no paving, no poured foundation) solar installations. Piles hammered into the ground or footed in concrete piers (removable with a shovel), metal conduit, panels mounted on the racks. We subsidize the farmers now
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I plan to protect our reserve agricultural land--land on which we pay farmers to not farm--by placing non-permanent (no paving, no poured foundation) solar installations.
Have you seen what happens to farmland that gets no sun? I have, it turns to sand.
I remember growing up on the farm and Dad went to build a new machine shed. I knew nothing of how one was built as the sheds we had up until then were built before I was born. I remember that in the existing sheds there was a fine sand that made the floor, I thought that was put there so there was a clear surface for the machines. I saw the shed go up but no trucks to bring in the sand. I was confused. It didn't take lon
Re: (Score:2)
That CRP land is still maintained, just no crop is taken from it. For land to "rest" means it's got a coverage of some kind of plant life but the nutrients are not removed in the form of crop and chaff.
Yeah and I'm also a little ahead of my knowledge on this one. In school, we had government and political science classes in which they told us the USDA pays farmers to not grow crops so as to stabilize prices, otherwise we get crop oversupply; I've been researching this lately, and it's not a thing. When I got down to the USDA's actual literature, I got different explanations of the CRP than what was written on other resources: the CRP leaves those lands wild to act as environmental barriers, catching r
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think it's enough solar?
Really, though, I need to think about that. We may need to slow that down. That's a hell of a fast change-over and cutting the rug out from under that many working Americans that fast will make it difficult for them to find new jobs.
I do hope your plan includes a shit load of storage, because that's what's missing from making renewables a truly robust replacement to conventional power sources (I'd also like to see more nuclear).
Re: (Score:2)
Advanced Recouperating Compressed Air Energy Storage is current-tech, but everyone keeps trying to build them in caverns instead of using storage tanks. The caverns keep turning out to be sandstone, and porous, so they leak or fail. Even a giant, underground tank would carry a fraction of the cost of battery storage.
We have a few regular CAES stations running around the world, and they're fantastically cost-efficient. Recouperating CAES stations add a thermal store (non-pressurized) to raise efficienc
Re: (Score:2)
We have all day an overcapacity. That is why we sell more electricity to our neighbors than they sell to us. The cause for the high price for consumers is solely based on the fact that wind and solar power get an more or less guaranteed minimum price for electricity which was well below electricity cost in the past. Unfortunately, the big coal plants did not go offline. Therefore, we have a massive overcapacity, which ruins the price, which should make it actually cheaper for the end user, but that end user
Re: (Score:2)
We should have compressed air energy storage facilities, but people keep trying to use existing caverns as storage tanks and finding out they're porous sandstone. Nobody wants to just build a giant tank.
Thing is we're paying to buy nothing. We're taking taxpayer money to give the farmers to hold land and do nothing with it. If we subsidize the farmers making profit off solar capacity, then the farmers get more money--and they get it in exchange for electricity, lowering the other costs the people pay.
Re: (Score:2)
You focus on that little nit when even the verb tense is wrong? I think you have a problem.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I live near GE Territory, GE usually brings ruin to communities. Because their business isn't very predictable. So they will come in lauded as the savior of the town, bringing thousand high paying engineering jobs to the community. So the community builds new infrastructure and nice home that only these jobs can afford. Then a decade later they will close that unit, and the town is in ruin, because it still hadn't paid off it loans for the infrastructure build up, these homes are left and sold for under th
Re: (Score:2)
Once the plants are built, there's very little need for more equipment to be produced.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. As evidenced by this dumb video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]