Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [hreg] A Wake Up Call from Seattle

Expand Messages
  • Robert Johnston
    As of close today, the market cap of ExxonMobil alone was $404 Billion. Let s see. 17.6M/404B = 0.004%. Add in the rest of the fossil fuels industry and
    Message 1 of 10 , Jan 2, 2013
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment

      As of close today, the market cap of ExxonMobil alone was $404 Billion.  Let’s see…  17.6M/404B = 0.004%.  Add in the rest of the fossil fuels industry and we’re probably talking 0.0001%.  I hardly think Seattle’s little statement will register, and I don’t see prudent pension and other fund managers following suit.  Face it:  the revitalization of natural gas due to shale gas/fracking is going to make for a very challenging time for wind power and other renewables.  Market forces will prevail.  Only when renewable technologies become competitive without subsidies can we expect to see massive inroads.  Government entities like Seattle can make political statements, but it isn’t likely that a supermajority of Congress will turn against fossil fuels anytime soon.  I think our challenge is to do what we can to promote continued R&D to improve energy efficiency and renewable source cost reduction.  Eventually, regulatory bodies will be forced to admit the magnitude of climate change and then there will a shift.  I suspect that is still many years down the road.


      Robert

       

       

      From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Violeta Archer
      Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 2:14 PM
      To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [hreg] A Wake Up Call from Seattle

       

       

      Folks,

       

      If you haven't heard already an alarm sounding off, you will soon. There's a loud wake up call coming out of Seattle. All you need to do is point your ears and telescope diagnally across the nation's mid-section to hear the message. With Houston being the energy capital of the world, the message is for US. And this alarm will reverberate on Wall Street, too.

       

      The City of Seattle and its Mayor - Mike McGinn - just made a decision to divest ALL fossil fuels from its investment portfolio. The funds represent $17.6 million (only 0.9% of its current $1.9B total assets), but enough to make a statement and set an example for others to follow.

       

      And the followers are lining up. Because Seattle's decision gives the Fossil Free Campaign more fuel to spread this ground-up revolution. (And if pressed for a prediction, I suspect the dominos will start falling next in California's direction. . .)

       

       

      This is so reminiscent of Paul Revere. . .

       

      Best regards,

       

      Violeta Archer

      HREG secretary

    • kevin conlin
      Robert, I have to disagree with your comment about subsidies. Two points: 1)Fossil fuel subsidies dwarf renewables subsidies, and the US nuclear power industry
      Message 2 of 10 , Jan 2, 2013
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment

        Robert,

         

        I have to disagree with your comment about subsidies.

         

        Two points:

        1)Fossil fuel subsidies dwarf renewables subsidies, and the US nuclear power industry wouldn’t exist without them. Do you not consider the cost of our military presence in the Persian Gulf a form of subsidy?  Who pays for it? We do.  Oil and gas production on public lands?  Not a subsidy?

         

        2) It’s not realistic to think American technology can be competitive in the world marketplace without government support, for the simple reason that other nations are aggressively supporting their industries. Look at the success China has had in becoming the dominant player in wind, pv and solar thermal. They set a goal while we dithered, and now they are the dominant player, and we’re somewhere behind Italy…

         

        The nature of advanced technologies is that most require some type of early support to facilitate their adoption. That isn’t a political statement, just reality.

         

        The solar industry is one of the fastest growing industries in the US, creating thousands of jobs. That doesn’t deserve government support?

         

        You are right in that eventually the market decides, but cheap gas is resulting in a loss of market share for coal, while California is on track to achieve 33% renewable power generation by 2020.

         

        It’s projected solar generated power will cost $.06/kwh in California in 2020, while fossil fuels will hover around $.15.  

         

        The world is bathed in enough sunlight every 88 minutes to power it for a year.  Seems like a good investment to me

         

        Best Regards,

         

        Kevin

         

        Kevin Conlin

        Sun-Stop LLC

        Houston TX

        kconlin@...

        281 202 9629

         

        From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert Johnston
        Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 6:59 PM
        To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: RE: [hreg] A Wake Up Call from Seattle

         

         

        As of close today, the market cap of ExxonMobil alone was $404 Billion.  Let’s see…  17.6M/404B = 0.004%.  Add in the rest of the fossil fuels industry and we’re probably talking 0.0001%.  I hardly think Seattle’s little statement will register, and I don’t see prudent pension and other fund managers following suit.  Face it:  the revitalization of natural gas due to shale gas/fracking is going to make for a very challenging time for wind power and other renewables.  Market forces will prevail.  Only when renewable technologies become competitive without subsidies can we expect to see massive inroads.  Government entities like Seattle can make political statements, but it isn’t likely that a supermajority of Congress will turn against fossil fuels anytime soon.  I think our challenge is to do what we can to promote continued R&D to improve energy efficiency and renewable source cost reduction.  Eventually, regulatory bodies will be forced to admit the magnitude of climate change and then there will a shift.  I suspect that is still many years down the road.


        Robert

         

         

        From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Violeta Archer
        Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 2:14 PM
        To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [hreg] A Wake Up Call from Seattle

         

         

        Folks,

         

        If you haven't heard already an alarm sounding off, you will soon. There's a loud wake up call coming out of Seattle. All you need to do is point your ears and telescope diagnally across the nation's mid-section to hear the message. With Houston being the energy capital of the world, the message is for US. And this alarm will reverberate on Wall Street, too.

         

        The City of Seattle and its Mayor - Mike McGinn - just made a decision to divest ALL fossil fuels from its investment portfolio. The funds represent $17.6 million (only 0.9% of its current $1.9B total assets), but enough to make a statement and set an example for others to follow.

         

        And the followers are lining up. Because Seattle's decision gives the Fossil Free Campaign more fuel to spread this ground-up revolution. (And if pressed for a prediction, I suspect the dominos will start falling next in California's direction. . .)

         

         

        This is so reminiscent of Paul Revere. . .

         

        Best regards,

         

        Violeta Archer

        HREG secretary

      • Robert Johnston
        Kevin, I m not disputing that subsidies exist in all kinds of industries including fossil fuels. But the market/sales price is what drives consumer behavior
        Message 3 of 10 , Jan 2, 2013
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment

          Kevin,

           

          I’m not disputing that subsidies exist in all kinds of industries including fossil fuels.  But the market/sales price is what drives consumer behavior and thus sales volume.  I don’t see that gap closing soon, particularly if natural gas prices remain low due to shale gas.  While RE has doubled on the following chart, look how small it is compared to coal and natural gas; just the annual oscillation in natural gas based generation dwarfs the total RE volume (and most of that isn’t solar).  http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=8450

           

          Graph of monthly U.S. electric generation, as explained in article text

           

           

          I’m not trying to dump on RE.  I’m just saying that it is a long, slow climb ahead.  And low NG prices will further slow growth.

           

          Worldwide, RE is not growing as fast as fossil fuels over the past 30 years, on an absolute basis:

          File:Annual electricity net generation in the world.svg

          (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_generation)

           

          And, the RE curve there is mostly hydro:

          File:Annual electricity net generation from renewable energy in the world.svg

           

          Solar barely registers!

           

          According to EIA, U.S. electricity generation from RE will grow from 13% in 2011 to 16% in 2030.  That’s hardly a rapid rise to dominance.  http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/executive_summary.cfm

           

          So, my argument stands.  It really doesn’t matter what stock portfolio divestitures Seattle politicians do; it is just a stunt.  It doesn’t matter if they are followed by 10 other major US cities.  The worldwide growth of fossil fuel usage for electricity generation will continue to swamp RE growth for the foreseeable future (and stock prices will reflect that).  This doesn’t mean that you and others like you can’t enjoy a high growth business in RE/PV.  It just means there is no tidal wave of change coming that will dramatically reverse the dominance of fossil fuels anytime soon.

           

          On a related note, I think the natural gas industry has done a great job of positioning themselves as the “clean fuel” (in contrast to coal and nuclear).  That view is pretty well entrenched.  Until there is a very decisive turn against all fossil fuels on the basis of climate change, I don’t think low cost natural gas will quit being used for a long time (decades).

           

          What will change that is if the cost of RE is lowered to below the cost of fossil fuels.  That is the true game changer.  EIA analysts don’t seem to project that outcome at least through 2040.  If your cited projections for California were to prove true nationally/globally, then of course by 2020 RE will be the preferred power source (of course, still have to figure out daily/seasonal load balancing and energy storage issues).  But given how fast shale gas is ramping up, I wonder how likely a $0.15/$0.06 cost ratio is?  I doubt companies would be investing billions in shale gas if they believed that in just 7 years their production sites would be so badly priced out of the market.  California may not be representative.  On a national basis, electricity costs for all users is projected to rise (in 2011 dollars, i.e., adjusting for inflation) by only 0.3%/yr through 2040, according to EIA.  http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/pdf/tbla3.pdf.  Electricity generated by natural gas is projected to grow by 1.4%/yr through 2040 and by RE 1.5%/yr, or about the same rate.  http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/pdf/tbla8.pdf.   EIA does not seem to believe that economics will drive faster growth in RE than NG for electricity production anytime soon.  Later in the same table (Table 8) prices (in 2011 dollars) for residential electricity are projected to be constant through 2030.  This is hardly what one would expect if RE was going to severely undercut NG generation costs by 2020.

           

          The good news is that solar/PV **will** grow at relatively rapid rates:  http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/pdf/tbla16.pdf.  It still makes only a small contribution overall, though, because it is starting from such a small base.  Thus, I am all for cheering solar’s (and RE’s) growth.  I just don’t see the wisdom in running down fossil fuel companies, boycotting their stocks, etc., when experts forecast our continued dependence on fossil fuels for the foreseeable future.  I’d be much more impressed with Seattle politicians if they would turn off all fossil fuel generated electricity in their city.  Of course they can’t do that (the city wouldn’t survive, and they wouldn’t survive in office).  So instead they are just pulling a political stunt, making a lame statement that they aren’t able to follow through with meaningful change/action.  Meantime, I suspect that Microsoft data centers alone chew up more megawatts than all of greater Seattle generates from PV in its drizzly, overcast northern climate.  Politicians won’t pull the plug on Microsoft either.

           

          On a related topic, biomass (ethanol) is one of the faster growing components of RE, used in transportation.  I don’t see how that is sustainable.  Corn based ethanol is of questionable ecological benefit (energy balances are close to neutral), but a farm state politician’s pork.  Switchgrass, algae, etc. may eventually help, but seriously, this is a racket that is negatively affecting food supplies for the world’s poor.  How long will that be morally tolerable?  One doesn’t hear nearly as much now about a hydrogen based transportation system as we did 10-20 years ago.  I think it is highly unlikely in the next couple decades; more likely would be that if liquid fuel sources (gasoline, diesel) are priced too highly, natural gas will become the transportation fuel (making T. Boone Pickens happy!).  Electric cars may prevent that if battery and refueling technologies develop fast enough to cause us to “skip” the natural gas generation of transportation system (beyond the small pilots today that are mostly in urban fleet vehicles).  I hope that happens, since that infrastructure would be generation source neutral, while a NG infrastructure would be delay the development and proliferation of an electric car infrastructure and thus use of RE for transportation.  An electric transportation system would still be powered by NG for a long time, given the economics I’ve reviewed, but RE could replace it when cost effective.  In this case, the added liquid fuel sources that are also coming from fracking/domestic oil production may provide the kind of delay that facilitates this technology generation skipping that I suspect most of us would like to see.

           

          Robert

           

          P.S.—I don’t claim any expertise here!  Just citing some data and suggesting that weak political gestures by Seattle, even if followed by several others, won’t reverse the tide; production system economics will.

           

           

          From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of kevin conlin
          Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 7:52 PM
          To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: RE: [hreg] A Wake Up Call from Seattle - responding

           

           

          Robert,

           

          I have to disagree with your comment about subsidies.

           

          Two points:

          1)Fossil fuel subsidies dwarf renewables subsidies, and the US nuclear power industry wouldn’t exist without them. Do you not consider the cost of our military presence in the Persian Gulf a form of subsidy?  Who pays for it? We do.  Oil and gas production on public lands?  Not a subsidy?

           

          2) It’s not realistic to think American technology can be competitive in the world marketplace without government support, for the simple reason that other nations are aggressively supporting their industries. Look at the success China has had in becoming the dominant player in wind, pv and solar thermal. They set a goal while we dithered, and now they are the dominant player, and we’re somewhere behind Italy…

           

          The nature of advanced technologies is that most require some type of early support to facilitate their adoption. That isn’t a political statement, just reality.

           

          The solar industry is one of the fastest growing industries in the US, creating thousands of jobs. That doesn’t deserve government support?

           

          You are right in that eventually the market decides, but cheap gas is resulting in a loss of market share for coal, while California is on track to achieve 33% renewable power generation by 2020.

           

          It’s projected solar generated power will cost $.06/kwh in California in 2020, while fossil fuels will hover around $.15.  

           

          The world is bathed in enough sunlight every 88 minutes to power it for a year.  Seems like a good investment to me

           

          Best Regards,

           

          Kevin

           

          Kevin Conlin

          Sun-Stop LLC

          Houston TX

          kconlin@...

          281 202 9629

           

          From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert Johnston
          Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 6:59 PM
          To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: RE: [hreg] A Wake Up Call from Seattle

           

           

          As of close today, the market cap of ExxonMobil alone was $404 Billion.  Let’s see…  17.6M/404B = 0.004%.  Add in the rest of the fossil fuels industry and we’re probably talking 0.0001%.  I hardly think Seattle’s little statement will register, and I don’t see prudent pension and other fund managers following suit.  Face it:  the revitalization of natural gas due to shale gas/fracking is going to make for a very challenging time for wind power and other renewables.  Market forces will prevail.  Only when renewable technologies become competitive without subsidies can we expect to see massive inroads.  Government entities like Seattle can make political statements, but it isn’t likely that a supermajority of Congress will turn against fossil fuels anytime soon.  I think our challenge is to do what we can to promote continued R&D to improve energy efficiency and renewable source cost reduction.  Eventually, regulatory bodies will be forced to admit the magnitude of climate change and then there will a shift.  I suspect that is still many years down the road.


          Robert

           

           

          From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Violeta Archer
          Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 2:14 PM
          To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [hreg] A Wake Up Call from Seattle

           

           

          Folks,

           

          If you haven't heard already an alarm sounding off, you will soon. There's a loud wake up call coming out of Seattle. All you need to do is point your ears and telescope diagnally across the nation's mid-section to hear the message. With Houston being the energy capital of the world, the message is for US. And this alarm will reverberate on Wall Street, too.

           

          The City of Seattle and its Mayor - Mike McGinn - just made a decision to divest ALL fossil fuels from its investment portfolio. The funds represent $17.6 million (only 0.9% of its current $1.9B total assets), but enough to make a statement and set an example for others to follow.

           

          And the followers are lining up. Because Seattle's decision gives the Fossil Free Campaign more fuel to spread this ground-up revolution. (And if pressed for a prediction, I suspect the dominos will start falling next in California's direction. . .)

           

           

          This is so reminiscent of Paul Revere. . .

           

          Best regards,

           

          Violeta Archer

          HREG secretary

        • Jim Duncan
          ..I don t claim any expertise here! Just citing some data and suggesting that weak political gestures by Seattle, even if followed by several others, won t
          Message 4 of 10 , Jan 2, 2013
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment

             

            ….I don’t claim any expertise here!  Just citing some data and suggesting that weak political gestures by Seattle, even if followed by several others, won’t reverse the tide; production system economics will.

             

             It’s hardly a weak gesture to be the first city to speak out against a trillion dollar corporate sociopath. The fact that they spoke with a proud and defiant voice will no doubt empower other cities and entities to follow.  I’m not holding my breath however for Houston or Fort Worth to speak out against their biggest corporate overseer any time soon.

            Jim Duncan

             

          • kevin conlin
            Very thoughtful response, Robert, thank you! Best Regards, Kevin Kevin Conlin Heliosolar Design Inc 13534 Quetzal Houston TX 77083-3525
            Message 5 of 10 , Jan 2, 2013
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment

              Very thoughtful response, Robert, thank you!

               

              Best Regards,

               

              Kevin

               

               

              Kevin Conlin

              Heliosolar Design Inc

              13534 Quetzal

              Houston TX 77083-3525

              kevin@...

              281 202 9629

               

              From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert Johnston
              Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 9:51 PM
              To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: RE: [hreg] A Wake Up Call from Seattle - responding

               

               

              Kevin,

               

              I’m not disputing that subsidies exist in all kinds of industries including fossil fuels.  But the market/sales price is what drives consumer behavior and thus sales volume.  I don’t see that gap closing soon, particularly if natural gas prices remain low due to shale gas.  While RE has doubled on the following chart, look how small it is compared to coal and natural gas; just the annual oscillation in natural gas based generation dwarfs the total RE volume (and most of that isn’t solar).  http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=8450

               

              Graph of monthly U.S. electric generation, as explained in article text

               

               

              I’m not trying to dump on RE.  I’m just saying that it is a long, slow climb ahead.  And low NG prices will further slow growth.

               

              Worldwide, RE is not growing as fast as fossil fuels over the past 30 years, on an absolute basis:

              File:Annual electricity net generation in the world.svg

              (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_generation)

               

              And, the RE curve there is mostly hydro:

              File:Annual electricity net generation from renewable energy in the world.svg

               

              Solar barely registers!

               

              According to EIA, U.S. electricity generation from RE will grow from 13% in 2011 to 16% in 2030.  That’s hardly a rapid rise to dominance.  http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/executive_summary.cfm

               

              So, my argument stands.  It really doesn’t matter what stock portfolio divestitures Seattle politicians do; it is just a stunt.  It doesn’t matter if they are followed by 10 other major US cities.  The worldwide growth of fossil fuel usage for electricity generation will continue to swamp RE growth for the foreseeable future (and stock prices will reflect that).  This doesn’t mean that you and others like you can’t enjoy a high growth business in RE/PV.  It just means there is no tidal wave of change coming that will dramatically reverse the dominance of fossil fuels anytime soon.

               

              On a related note, I think the natural gas industry has done a great job of positioning themselves as the “clean fuel” (in contrast to coal and nuclear).  That view is pretty well entrenched.  Until there is a very decisive turn against all fossil fuels on the basis of climate change, I don’t think low cost natural gas will quit being used for a long time (decades).

               

              What will change that is if the cost of RE is lowered to below the cost of fossil fuels.  That is the true game changer.  EIA analysts don’t seem to project that outcome at least through 2040.  If your cited projections for California were to prove true nationally/globally, then of course by 2020 RE will be the preferred power source (of course, still have to figure out daily/seasonal load balancing and energy storage issues).  But given how fast shale gas is ramping up, I wonder how likely a $0.15/$0.06 cost ratio is?  I doubt companies would be investing billions in shale gas if they believed that in just 7 years their production sites would be so badly priced out of the market.  California may not be representative.  On a national basis, electricity costs for all users is projected to rise (in 2011 dollars, i.e., adjusting for inflation) by only 0.3%/yr through 2040, according to EIA.  http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/pdf/tbla3.pdf.  Electricity generated by natural gas is projected to grow by 1.4%/yr through 2040 and by RE 1.5%/yr, or about the same rate.  http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/pdf/tbla8.pdf.   EIA does not seem to believe that economics will drive faster growth in RE than NG for electricity production anytime soon.  Later in the same table (Table 8) prices (in 2011 dollars) for residential electricity are projected to be constant through 2030.  This is hardly what one would expect if RE was going to severely undercut NG generation costs by 2020.

               

              The good news is that solar/PV **will** grow at relatively rapid rates:  http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/pdf/tbla16.pdf.  It still makes only a small contribution overall, though, because it is starting from such a small base.  Thus, I am all for cheering solar’s (and RE’s) growth.  I just don’t see the wisdom in running down fossil fuel companies, boycotting their stocks, etc., when experts forecast our continued dependence on fossil fuels for the foreseeable future.  I’d be much more impressed with Seattle politicians if they would turn off all fossil fuel generated electricity in their city.  Of course they can’t do that (the city wouldn’t survive, and they wouldn’t survive in office).  So instead they are just pulling a political stunt, making a lame statement that they aren’t able to follow through with meaningful change/action.  Meantime, I suspect that Microsoft data centers alone chew up more megawatts than all of greater Seattle generates from PV in its drizzly, overcast northern climate.  Politicians won’t pull the plug on Microsoft either.

               

              On a related topic, biomass (ethanol) is one of the faster growing components of RE, used in transportation.  I don’t see how that is sustainable.  Corn based ethanol is of questionable ecological benefit (energy balances are close to neutral), but a farm state politician’s pork.  Switchgrass, algae, etc. may eventually help, but seriously, this is a racket that is negatively affecting food supplies for the world’s poor.  How long will that be morally tolerable?  One doesn’t hear nearly as much now about a hydrogen based transportation system as we did 10-20 years ago.  I think it is highly unlikely in the next couple decades; more likely would be that if liquid fuel sources (gasoline, diesel) are priced too highly, natural gas will become the transportation fuel (making T. Boone Pickens happy!).  Electric cars may prevent that if battery and refueling technologies develop fast enough to cause us to “skip” the natural gas generation of transportation system (beyond the small pilots today that are mostly in urban fleet vehicles).  I hope that happens, since that infrastructure would be generation source neutral, while a NG infrastructure would be delay the development and proliferation of an electric car infrastructure and thus use of RE for transportation.  An electric transportation system would still be powered by NG for a long time, given the economics I’ve reviewed, but RE could replace it when cost effective.  In this case, the added liquid fuel sources that are also coming from fracking/domestic oil production may provide the kind of delay that facilitates this technology generation skipping that I suspect most of us would like to see.

               

              Robert

               

              P.S.—I don’t claim any expertise here!  Just citing some data and suggesting that weak political gestures by Seattle, even if followed by several others, won’t reverse the tide; production system economics will.

               

               

              From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of kevin conlin
              Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 7:52 PM
              To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: RE: [hreg] A Wake Up Call from Seattle - responding

               

               

              Robert,

               

              I have to disagree with your comment about subsidies.

               

              Two points:

              1)Fossil fuel subsidies dwarf renewables subsidies, and the US nuclear power industry wouldn’t exist without them. Do you not consider the cost of our military presence in the Persian Gulf a form of subsidy?  Who pays for it? We do.  Oil and gas production on public lands?  Not a subsidy?

               

              2) It’s not realistic to think American technology can be competitive in the world marketplace without government support, for the simple reason that other nations are aggressively supporting their industries. Look at the success China has had in becoming the dominant player in wind, pv and solar thermal. They set a goal while we dithered, and now they are the dominant player, and we’re somewhere behind Italy…

               

              The nature of advanced technologies is that most require some type of early support to facilitate their adoption. That isn’t a political statement, just reality.

               

              The solar industry is one of the fastest growing industries in the US, creating thousands of jobs. That doesn’t deserve government support?

               

              You are right in that eventually the market decides, but cheap gas is resulting in a loss of market share for coal, while California is on track to achieve 33% renewable power generation by 2020.

               

              It’s projected solar generated power will cost $.06/kwh in California in 2020, while fossil fuels will hover around $.15.  

               

              The world is bathed in enough sunlight every 88 minutes to power it for a year.  Seems like a good investment to me

               

              Best Regards,

               

              Kevin

               

              Kevin Conlin

              Sun-Stop LLC

              Houston TX

              kconlin@...

              281 202 9629

               

              From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert Johnston
              Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 6:59 PM
              To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: RE: [hreg] A Wake Up Call from Seattle

               

               

              As of close today, the market cap of ExxonMobil alone was $404 Billion.  Let’s see…  17.6M/404B = 0.004%.  Add in the rest of the fossil fuels industry and we’re probably talking 0.0001%.  I hardly think Seattle’s little statement will register, and I don’t see prudent pension and other fund managers following suit.  Face it:  the revitalization of natural gas due to shale gas/fracking is going to make for a very challenging time for wind power and other renewables.  Market forces will prevail.  Only when renewable technologies become competitive without subsidies can we expect to see massive inroads.  Government entities like Seattle can make political statements, but it isn’t likely that a supermajority of Congress will turn against fossil fuels anytime soon.  I think our challenge is to do what we can to promote continued R&D to improve energy efficiency and renewable source cost reduction.  Eventually, regulatory bodies will be forced to admit the magnitude of climate change and then there will a shift.  I suspect that is still many years down the road.


              Robert

               

               

              From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Violeta Archer
              Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 2:14 PM
              To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [hreg] A Wake Up Call from Seattle

               

               

              Folks,

               

              If you haven't heard already an alarm sounding off, you will soon. There's a loud wake up call coming out of Seattle. All you need to do is point your ears and telescope diagnally across the nation's mid-section to hear the message. With Houston being the energy capital of the world, the message is for US. And this alarm will reverberate on Wall Street, too.

               

              The City of Seattle and its Mayor - Mike McGinn - just made a decision to divest ALL fossil fuels from its investment portfolio. The funds represent $17.6 million (only 0.9% of its current $1.9B total assets), but enough to make a statement and set an example for others to follow.

               

              And the followers are lining up. Because Seattle's decision gives the Fossil Free Campaign more fuel to spread this ground-up revolution. (And if pressed for a prediction, I suspect the dominos will start falling next in California's direction. . .)

               

               

              This is so reminiscent of Paul Revere. . .

               

              Best regards,

               

              Violeta Archer

              HREG secretary

            • Robert Johnston
              Jim, I guess we ll just have to disagree here. I don t see them as corporate sociopaths. But even if I did, I would still argue that Seattle is making a
              Message 6 of 10 , Jan 2, 2013
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment

                Jim,


                I guess we’ll just have to disagree here.  I don’t see “them” as corporate sociopaths.  But even if I did, I would still argue that Seattle is making a weak political gesture.  First, because it has a negligible impact on stock valuations.  Second, because it reeks of hypocrisy.  It is analogous to a bar saying that in recognition of the negative impact of alcohol on mental and physical health, driving safety, domestic abuse, and crime, it’s owners have decided to divest themselves of liquor company stocks, but they have no plans to discontinue the use and distribution of alcohol to their many patrons or to earn their livelihood that way.  By continuing to purchase and distribute alcohol, they are probably doing more to uphold the value of the liquor company stocks than their miniscule holdings of stock did.  Theirs is a hypocritical, empty gesture, devoid of significance to those who “follow the money” rather than “words” to determine where one’s heart is truly at.  The bar’s alcoholic patrons, unable to wean themselves from alcohol, continue to down glass after glass, having some vague notion that the bar cares about them and is doing what it can to stand up to the evil corporations that are destroying their lives.

                 

                Cheers!  <burp>


                Robert

                 

                 

                 

                From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim Duncan
                Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 10:19 PM
                To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: RE: [hreg] A Wake Up Call from Seattle - responding

                 

                 

                 

                ….I don’t claim any expertise here!  Just citing some data and suggesting that weak political gestures by Seattle, even if followed by several others, won’t reverse the tide; production system economics will.

                 

                 It’s hardly a weak gesture to be the first city to speak out against a trillion dollar corporate sociopath. The fact that they spoke with a proud and defiant voice will no doubt empower other cities and entities to follow.  I’m not holding my breath however for Houston or Fort Worth to speak out against their biggest corporate overseer any time soon.

                Jim Duncan

                 

              • Thomas Wayburn
                Kevin, Yes, of course, to pay the huge up-front costs of solar, for example, before a single Btu is harvested from the sun, an Apollo solar energy project must
                Message 7 of 10 , Jan 2, 2013
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment

                  Kevin,

                   

                  Yes, of course, to pay the huge up-front costs of solar, for example, before a single Btu is harvested from the sun, an Apollo solar energy project must be subsidized, which I would vote for provided, there is no venture capitalist waiting in the wings and the operation is not for the private profit of anyone, except of course the workers including the white collar workers who haven’t been fired yet.  I did a bunch of spreadsheet analysis during my debate with Dave Kindle at http://dematerialism.net/pv.htm

                   

                  Thomas Wayburn, Houston , Texas
                  http://dematerialism.net/
                  http://eroei.blogspot.com/
                  http://dematerialism.wikispaces.com/
                  http://modrr.net/


                  From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of kevin conlin
                  Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 7:52 PM
                  To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: RE: [hreg] A Wake Up Call from Seattle - responding

                   

                   

                  Robert,

                   

                  I have to disagree with your comment about subsidies.

                   

                  Two points:

                  1)Fossil fuel subsidies dwarf renewables subsidies, and the US nuclear power industry wouldn’t exist without them. Do you not consider the cost of our military presence in the Persian Gulf a form of subsidy?  Who pays for it? We do.  Oil and gas production on public lands?  Not a subsidy?

                   

                  2) It’s not realistic to think American technology can be competitive in the world marketplace without government support, for the simple reason that other nations are aggressively supporting their industries. Look at the success China has had in becoming the dominant player in wind, pv and solar thermal. They set a goal while we dithered, and now they are the dominant player, and we’re somewhere behind Italy …

                   

                  The nature of advanced technologies is that most require some type of early support to facilitate their adoption. That isn’t a political statement, just reality.

                   

                  The solar industry is one of the fastest growing industries in the US , creating thousands of jobs. That doesn’t deserve government support?

                   

                  You are right in that eventually the market decides, but cheap gas is resulting in a loss of market share for coal, while California is on track to achieve 33% renewable power generation by 2020.

                   

                  It’s projected solar generated power will cost $.06/kwh in California in 2020, while fossil fuels will hover around $.15.  

                   

                  The world is bathed in enough sunlight every 88 minutes to power it for a year.  Seems like a good investment to me

                   

                  Best Regards,

                   

                  Kevin

                   

                  Kevin Conlin

                  Sun-Stop LLC

                  Houston TX

                  kconlin@...

                  281 202 9629

                   

                  From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert Johnston
                  Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 6:59 PM
                  To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: RE: [hreg] A Wake Up Call from Seattle

                   

                   

                  As of close today, the market cap of ExxonMobil alone was $404 Billion.  Let’s see…  17.6M/404B = 0.004%.  Add in the rest of the fossil fuels industry and we’re probably talking 0.0001%.  I hardly think Seattle ’s little statement will register, and I don’t see prudent pension and other fund managers following suit.  Face it:  the revitalization of natural gas due to shale gas/fracking is going to make for a very challenging time for wind power and other renewables.  Market forces will prevail.  Only when renewable technologies become competitive without subsidies can we expect to see massive inroads.  Government entities like Seattle can make political statements, but it isn’t likely that a supermajority of Congress will turn against fossil fuels anytime soon.  I think our challenge is to do what we can to promote continued R&D to improve energy efficiency and renewable source cost reduction.  Eventually, regulatory bodies will be forced to admit the magnitude of climate change and then there will a shift.  I suspect that is still many years down the road.


                  Robert

                   

                   

                  From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Violeta Archer
                  Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 2:14 PM
                  To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [hreg] A Wake Up Call from Seattle

                   

                   

                  Folks,

                   

                  If you haven't heard already an alarm sounding off, you will soon. There's a loud wake up call coming out of Seattle . All you need to do is point your ears and telescope diagnally across the nation's mid-section to hear the message. With Houston being the energy capital of the world, the message is for US. And this alarm will reverberate on Wall Street, too.

                   

                  The City of Seattle and its Mayor - Mike McGinn - just made a decision to divest ALL fossil fuels from its investment portfolio. The funds represent $17.6 million (only 0.9% of its current $1.9B total assets), but enough to make a statement and set an example for others to follow.

                   

                  And the followers are lining up. Because Seattle 's decision gives the Fossil Free Campaign more fuel to spread this ground-up revolution. (And if pressed for a prediction, I suspect the dominos will start falling next in California 's direction. . ..)

                   

                   

                  This is so reminiscent of Paul Revere. . ..

                   

                  Best regards,

                   

                  Violeta Archer

                  HREG secretary





                  =======
                  Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
                  (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2900, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.20930)
                  http://www.pctools.com
                  =======





                  =======
                  Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
                  (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2900, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.20930)
                  http://www.pctools.com
                  =======
                • Jim Duncan
                  Huh? From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert Johnston Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 11:05 PM To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                  Message 8 of 10 , Jan 3, 2013
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment

                    Huh?

                     

                     

                    From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert Johnston
                    Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 11:05 PM
                    To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: RE: [hreg] A Wake Up Call from Seattle - responding

                     

                     

                    Jim,


                    I guess we’ll just have to disagree here.  I don’t see “them” as corporate sociopaths.  But even if I did, I would still argue that Seattle is making a weak political gesture.  First, because it has a negligible impact on stock valuations.  Second, because it reeks of hypocrisy.  It is analogous to a bar saying that in recognition of the negative impact of alcohol on mental and physical health, driving safety, domestic abuse, and crime, it’s owners have decided to divest themselves of liquor company stocks, but they have no plans to discontinue the use and distribution of alcohol to their many patrons or to earn their livelihood that way.  By continuing to purchase and distribute alcohol, they are probably doing more to uphold the value of the liquor company stocks than their miniscule holdings of stock did.  Theirs is a hypocritical, empty gesture, devoid of significance to those who “follow the money” rather than “words” to determine where one’s heart is truly at.  The bar’s alcoholic patrons, unable to wean themselves from alcohol, continue to down glass after glass, having some vague notion that the bar cares about them and is doing what it can to stand up to the evil corporations that are destroying their lives.

                     

                    Cheers!  <burp>


                    Robert

                     

                     

                     

                    From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim Duncan
                    Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 10:19 PM
                    To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: RE: [hreg] A Wake Up Call from Seattle - responding

                     

                     

                     

                    ….I don’t claim any expertise here!  Just citing some data and suggesting that weak political gestures by Seattle, even if followed by several others, won’t reverse the tide; production system economics will.

                     

                     It’s hardly a weak gesture to be the first city to speak out against a trillion dollar corporate sociopath. The fact that they spoke with a proud and defiant voice will no doubt empower other cities and entities to follow.  I’m not holding my breath however for Houston or Fort Worth to speak out against their biggest corporate overseer any time soon.

                    Jim Duncan

                     

                  • Jim Duncan
                    If you would turn off your foxnews for a year or two and learn the facts about the middle east and the oil war there, you would begin to understand my
                    Message 9 of 10 , Jan 3, 2013
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment

                      If you would turn off your foxnews for a year or two and learn the facts about the middle east and the oil war there,  you would begin to understand my reference to Exxon and its sociopathic behavior after losing the oil war in Iraq.

                      Start here: http://priceofoil.org/2012/12/19/iraq-exxon-drilling-could-start-civil-war/

                      Jim Duncan

                       

                       

                      From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert Johnston
                      Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 11:05 PM
                      To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: RE: [hreg] A Wake Up Call from Seattle - responding

                       

                       

                      Jim,


                      I guess we’ll just have to disagree here.  I don’t see “them” as corporate sociopaths.  But even if I did, I would still argue that Seattle is making a weak political gesture.  First, because it has a negligible impact on stock valuations.  Second, because it reeks of hypocrisy.  It is analogous to a bar saying that in recognition of the negative impact of alcohol on mental and physical health, driving safety, domestic abuse, and crime, it’s owners have decided to divest themselves of liquor company stocks, but they have no plans to discontinue the use and distribution of alcohol to their many patrons or to earn their livelihood that way.  By continuing to purchase and distribute alcohol, they are probably doing more to uphold the value of the liquor company stocks than their miniscule holdings of stock did.  Theirs is a hypocritical, empty gesture, devoid of significance to those who “follow the money” rather than “words” to determine where one’s heart is truly at.  The bar’s alcoholic patrons, unable to wean themselves from alcohol, continue to down glass after glass, having some vague notion that the bar cares about them and is doing what it can to stand up to the evil corporations that are destroying their lives.

                       

                      Cheers!  <burp>


                      Robert

                       

                       

                       

                      From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim Duncan
                      Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 10:19 PM
                      To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: RE: [hreg] A Wake Up Call from Seattle - responding

                       

                       

                       

                      ….I don’t claim any expertise here!  Just citing some data and suggesting that weak political gestures by Seattle, even if followed by several others, won’t reverse the tide; production system economics will.

                       

                       It’s hardly a weak gesture to be the first city to speak out against a trillion dollar corporate sociopath. The fact that they spoke with a proud and defiant voice will no doubt empower other cities and entities to follow.  I’m not holding my breath however for Houston or Fort Worth to speak out against their biggest corporate overseer any time soon.

                      Jim Duncan

                       

                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.