or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Your ideas, hopes and links for green travel.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Your ideas, hopes and links for green travel. - Page 3

post #81 of 318
I apologize for my Liberal brethren. They know not what they speak when it comes to nuclear power. Dammit guys, quickest way for us to clean up our environment is to get some pebble bed reactors going across the country and stop burning coal & oil for electricity. The science is settled on nuclear power. It's safe, clean, and easy. Stop bringing up Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island. Those are red herrings.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #82 of 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I apologize for my Liberal brethren. They know not what they speak when it comes to nuclear power. Dammit guys, quickest way for us to clean up our environment is to get some pebble bed reactors going across the country and stop burning coal & oil for electricity. The science is settled on nuclear power. It's safe, clean, and easy. Stop bringing up Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island. Those are red herrings.

Now if only we can get one in our car we could perhaps have green travel with no fill-ups in a more than average 10 year car lifespan.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #83 of 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

As for storage: There are risks, but it can be done. It just has to be done carefully. It's really the only viable option when compared to others.

Now... years down the road... we've got enough of this "hot waste" stored up that it becomes economically feasible for someone to "discover" a way to harness all that residual energy... suddenly that nuclear waste becomes another asset rather than a liability.
I'll offer my own back yard if you really need a place to store it.
Hell I'd even let you build a whole freakin' nuclear power plant on my land!
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #84 of 318
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Didn't see that. Care to address content?

Nuclear power costs huge amounts of money. For far less we already know that we could provide all of our power from much more sustainable sources like wind and solar and a whole lot quicker and certainly much much more safely.

Our focus needs to be on dismantling nuclear power stations that are costly and dangerous. We'd also provide a lot more jobs that way and get the price of things like solar panels for peoples homes down quicker too.

So forget nuclear and start thinking about saving energy and the planet.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #85 of 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

Focus here seems to be on electric battery powered cars. Curious if there have been studies whether our present electric grid system is sufficient to handle the increased number of battery powered cars. We seem to be at our limit in production of electricity.

In broad terms, the electric system is running at capacity, and in fact beyond design capacity in some cases, at least here in the US. Generally speaking, it cannot withstand any more load.

The problem isn't generation, it's distribution. Electric generation and distribution systems are engineered for peak consumption; that occurs during the day. Plenty of excess capacity exists at night, so the answer for electric vehicle advocates is "charge them at night". That conveniently assumes they'll run all day without need to recharge them, and people won't drive at night. Besides, solar power is unavailable at night.

The next thing to remember is that it takes a certain amount of energy to propel a vehicle from point A to point B, no matter how it's powered. In other words if your car weighs 1500 lb it will take so many BTUs of energy to get from here to there no matter how that energy is produced. That will never change.

The most energy efficient way to do that is use energy as directly as possible, and electric power is one of the most inefficient uses of energy - roughly speaking, 65 to 75 percent of the energy required to generate and distribute electric power is lost before it gets delivered to the consumer (all losses are dissipated as heat).

As far as I know no one has performed a comprehensive analysis of the overall energy efficiency of electric cars. This would require determining end-to-end costs of electric generation including the fuel used to do so, the costs of distributing power including generation and distribution equipment acquisition, construction, installation, maintenance, replacement, and disposal, as well as the cost to manufacture, maintain, distribute, and dispose of all those batteries being hauled around in electric vehicles. Only once that's done it can be compared to similar costs for gas or diesel powered vehicles. All the while it still takes that same amount of BTUs to go from here to there.

Besides their ability to utilize fuel more directly, another advantage of gas and diesel powered cars is that they conveniently get lighter as you burn fuel, while batteries weigh the same all the time.

Electric car advocates like to think they're emissions-free. Nothing could be further from the truth. Generation, distribution, and maintenance costs don't go away and as I began with, electric power is the most inefficient sort.

Back to your initial question about the electric grid. It already needs significant investment thanks to the popularity of big screen TVs and computers. The added burden of electric cars won't help.

Finally, the US still derives most of its power from fuels - oil, coal, and natural gas. Not only do solar and wind power account for a few percent of all electric generation, their costs are wildly expensive compared to natural gas or even "clean coal" - about 50% higher for wind power and 300% higher for solar (PV). Despite Al Gore's challenge to migrate all energy from "renewable sources" within 10 years, 11 years later we're pretty much where we were. Even if electric cars were affordable and viable, in the end they essentially still rely upon good old oil, gas, and coal for the power they need. A Prius is thus more of a coal burner than anything else.

The US ought to be ashamed that its reliance on nuclear energy has completely stagnated while the rest of the world develops and improves upon the technology. Until the US gets over its nuclear energy phobias and makes major investments in electric power distribution, Obama's vision of electric cars will simply require... more coal, oil, and gas.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #86 of 318
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

In broad terms, the electric system is running at capacity, and in fact beyond design capacity in some cases, at least here in the US. Generally speaking, it cannot withstand any more load.

The problem isn't generation, it's distribution. Electric generation and distribution systems are engineered for peak consumption; that occurs during the day. Plenty of excess capacity exists at night, so the answer for electric vehicle advocates is "charge them at night". That conveniently assumes they'll run all day without need to recharge them, and people won't drive at night. Besides, solar power is unavailable at night.

The next thing to remember is that it takes a certain amount of energy to propel a vehicle from point A to point B, no matter how it's powered. In other words if your car weighs 1500 lb it will take so many BTUs of energy to get from here to there no matter how that energy is produced. That will never change.

The most energy efficient way to do that is use energy as directly as possible, and electric power is one of the most inefficient uses of energy - roughly speaking, 65 to 75 percent of the energy required to generate and distribute electric power is lost before it gets delivered to the consumer (all losses are dissipated as heat).

As far as I know no one has performed a comprehensive analysis of the overall energy efficiency of electric cars. This would require determining end-to-end costs of electric generation including the fuel used to do so, the costs of distributing power including generation and distribution equipment acquisition, construction, installation, maintenance, replacement, and disposal, as well as the cost to manufacture, maintain, distribute, and dispose of all those batteries being hauled around in electric vehicles. Only once that's done it can be compared to similar costs for gas or diesel powered vehicles. All the while it still takes that same amount of BTUs to go from here to there.

Besides their ability to utilize fuel more directly, another advantage of gas and diesel powered cars is that they conveniently get lighter as you burn fuel, while batteries weigh the same all the time.

Electric car advocates like to think they're emissions-free. Nothing could be further from the truth. Generation, distribution, and maintenance costs don't go away and as I began with, electric power is the most inefficient sort.

Back to your initial question about the electric grid. It already needs significant investment thanks to the popularity of big screen TVs and computers. The added burden of electric cars won't help.

Finally, the US still derives most of its power from fuels - oil, coal, and natural gas. Not only do solar and wind power account for a few percent of all electric generation, their costs are wildly expensive compared to natural gas or even "clean coal" - about 50% higher for wind power and 300% higher for solar (PV). Despite Al Gore's challenge to migrate all energy from "renewable sources" within 10 years, 11 years later we're pretty much where we were. Even if electric cars were affordable and viable, in the end they essentially still rely upon good old oil, gas, and coal for the power they need. A Prius is thus more of a coal burner than anything else.

The US ought to be ashamed that its reliance on nuclear energy has completely stagnated while the rest of the world develops and improves upon the technology. Until the US gets over its nuclear energy phobias and makes major investments in electric power distribution, Obama's vision of electric cars will simply require... more coal, oil, and gas.


You seem like a pretty bright person but your fooling yourself if you think solar and wind won't produce electricity at a much cheaper dollar cost (LCOE is the general reference) than nuclear, indeed the costs per watt has already got close to nuclear and some argue that in some areas it's cheaper. I'd be interested to know where your figures come from and what age of solar and wind you're comparing. The older tech is bound to be less efficient.



The technologies in wind solar etc are advancing at an amazing rate. The new panels (and lots of other advancements within their operation) and newer one's to come will yield far more energy per meter than what's been and they'll maintain there ability to create that energy over their lifetime much better too. They'll also use much less mining to achieve those energy levels. Mining for nuclear is currently getting harder and more expensive.

Nuclear technology is progressing of course but nowhere nearly as fast as solar etc when it comes to price per watt.

I think it's going to be a real gas in just a few years when solar etc power is by far cheaper than gas, coal and nuclear and of course that unit price per watt doesn't even take into account the devastating costs of CO2 in the atmosphere.

I wouldn't say that this article is necessarily paints a complete picture, but it gives a taste of the future- http://www.ncwarn.org/wp-content/upl...-nuke-rept.pdf
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #87 of 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

You seem like a pretty bright person but your fooling yourself if you think solar and wind won't produce electricity at a much cheaper dollar cost (LCOE is the general reference) than nuclear, indeed the costs per watt has already got close to nuclear and some argue that in some areas it's cheaper. I'd be interested to know where your figures come from and what age of solar and wind you're comparing. The older tech is bound to be less efficient.

The technologies in wind solar etc are advancing at an amazing rate. The new panels (and lots of other advancements within their operation) and newer one's to come will yield far more energy per meter than what's been and they'll maintain there ability to create that energy over their lifetime much better too. They'll also use much less mining to achieve those energy levels.

So then I guess we'll see rapid and widespread adoption because the benefits are so clear. Businesses will be the first because they are greedy of course and seek to maximize profits. Consumers will adopt much more slowly because they are ignorant and retarded and will need to be forced to adopt such and obviously beneficial energy technology.

And yet...

Average consumers have a stunning ability to adopt (quite rapidly in some cases) very obviously beneficial new products and technologies without being forced.

And yet...

One of the guys at the company I work for who is charged with reducing energy (electricity) costs and who has a really high incentive to do so, ran the numbers and could not justify these alternative sources. Huh.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #88 of 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I'd be interested to know where your figures come from and what age of solar and wind you're comparing. The older tech is bound to be less efficient.

It's from a preliminary US Department of Energy report scheduled to be released next month.

Quote:
The technologies in wind solar etc are advancing at an amazing rate. ...
I think it's going to be a real gas in just a few years when solar etc power is by far cheaper than gas, coal and nuclear

In your dreams. The report concludes that coal and natural gas are expected to dominate US energy needs for the next 25 years. In fact, reliance on natural gas is expected to increase sharply, due to its abundance, the discovery of much more of it than was projected just last year, and the relatively low cost of power plant construction. Coal is cheap and expected to remain cheap. "Renewable" sources are expected to grow also, but that's entirely due to federal and state tax credits in response to the carbon dioxide idiocy, not to any economic advantage whatsoever. Projections for residential reliance on solar and wind power have actually been revised downward.

Fuel itself may be "low tech" but the power plants that burn gas and coal have become extremely efficient.

Nuclear is expected to diminish. That's a shame, and will only ensure our continued reliance on "people who don't like us very much." There is a bright spot though, in that more non-OPEC sources of oil are becoming available.

The future of energy production, at least for the next few decades, remains as it has been for the last few decades: oil, coal, and natural gas. You may choose to like that fact, or not, but you ought to get used to it.

You can read the preliminary report here.

Bookmark this page and let's review in 2035.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #89 of 318
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

So then I guess we'll see rapid and widespread adoption because the benefits are so clear. Businesses will be the first because they are greedy of course and seek to maximize profits. Consumers will adopt much more slowly because they are ignorant and retarded and will need to be forced to adopt such and obviously beneficial energy technology.

And yet...

Average consumers have a stunning ability to adopt (quite rapidly in some cases) very obviously beneficial new products and technologies without being forced.

And yet...

One of the guys at the company I work for who is charged with reducing energy (electricity) costs and who has a really high incentive to do so, ran the numbers and could not justify these alternative sources. Huh.

Solar and wind do cost more at the moment in straight out of your pocket dollar costs, but if we go building new nuclear power stations, that take about 9 years or so to completion, we'll be paying far more for that power than solar etc, and at the same time hinder investment in solar etc. It's really not wise at all.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #90 of 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

It's really not wise at all.

I suspect that if we had a completely unhindered, unsubsidized energy industry we'd be able to evaluate your claim. But I still suspect you're wrong.

P.S. I suspect that one aspect you're probably ignoring is that the 9 years to build a nuke plant is largely due to excessive government regulation.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #91 of 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

Fuel itself may be "low tech" but the power plants that burn gas and coal have become extremely efficient.

Beyond just the machines that use these fuels becoming more efficient...pound for pound...cubic inch for cubic inch...whatever measure you want to use...the fossil fuels simply pack more energy. At some point its just the overall physics of the thing. And there is tons of it available and more to be discovered.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #92 of 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

As far as I know no one has performed a comprehensive analysis of the overall energy efficiency of electric cars. ...

Here is a report that answers that to some degree. It's obviously biased in its attempt to justify the overall energy efficiency of the Tesla Roadster, but it's a good start:

http://www.stanford.edu/group/greend...slaReading.pdf

Naturally, it blows the doors off a Honda

Some things to note: it assumes the "source fuel" is natural gas, one of the more efficient fuels for power plants, but remember nearly twice as many power plants are coal-fired than gas. Also, they chose the GE H System combined cycle turbine generator, one of the most efficient. Only the best for Elon Musk it would seem. Also, the report glosses over the relatively poor "well-to-station" efficiency of electric vs. gas or diesel that I spoke of earlier.

They'd have done better to choose a nuke plant... and remember the problems with the aging US electric infrastructure. Teslas are pretty cool cars, but plugging in millions of them right now would darken everyone's homes.

Finally, the report is preliminary. I don't know if the current production car meets those estimates.

Still hoping for wind and solar power? Don't hold your breath
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #93 of 318
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

It's from a preliminary US Department of Energy report scheduled to be released next month.



In your dreams. The report concludes that coal and natural gas are expected to dominate US energy needs for the next 25 years. In fact, reliance on natural gas is expected to increase sharply, due to its abundance, the discovery of much more of it than was projected just last year, and the relatively low cost of power plant construction. Coal is cheap and expected to remain cheap. "Renewable" sources are expected to grow also, but that's entirely due to federal and state tax credits in response to the carbon dioxide idiocy, not to any economic advantage whatsoever. Projections for residential reliance on solar and wind power have actually been revised downward.

Fuel itself may be "low tech" but the power plants that burn gas and coal have become extremely efficient.

Nuclear is expected to diminish. That's a shame, and will only ensure our continued reliance on "people who don't like us very much." There is a bright spot though, in that more non-OPEC sources of oil are becoming available.

The future of energy production, at least for the next few decades, remains as it has been for the last few decades: oil, coal, and natural gas. You may choose to like that fact, or not, but you ought to get used to it.

You can read the preliminary report here.

Bookmark this page and let's review in 2035.

I was asking about your figures on the costs of energy. Those percentages you quoted are not in that report and there's nothing in the report to make those percentages from.

That report is not based on reality. No future law changes are in that report and that will prove highly consequential for what really happens. Of course it's very difficult for anyone to know exactly what those laws will be and how they will effect things, but one thing you can be absolutely sure of is that funding for solar etc is going to become much easier to get which has been and indeed still is difficult.

I wouldn't bookmark that page for 2035, I'd book it for 2012 because the acceleration in renewables has barely even begun. Contrary to MJ's comment following on from your post that I'm replying to, gas coal and oil will not be cheaper than renewables, and certainly aren't on a purely "physical" level, at least they won't be. Think about it, mine a little and then use the suns rays to make energy year after year after year or mine very extinsively and transport that energy to where it produces more energy. It's a no brainer what's "physically" more practical and that's solar etc.

It was time consuming (and annoying) reading that report on my iphone because it was especially small type, so I'll give it a better read at my computer tomorow or sometime.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #94 of 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

but one thing you can be absolutely sure of is that funding for solar etc is going to become much easier to get which has been and indeed still is difficult.

Really? How do you know?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Contrary to MJ's comment following on from your post that I'm replying to, gas coal and oil will not be cheaper than renewables, and certainly aren't on a purely "physical" level, at least they won't be.

Really? How do you know?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Think about it, mine a little and then use the suns rays to make energy year after year after year...

When it's sunny of course.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

It's a no brainer what's "physically" more practical and that's like solar etc.

And yet...it's not. Go figure. All of the dreams and wishes and good intentions have not made this true. They can't even turn something like corn into fuel without it being net energy loss.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #95 of 318
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Really? How do you know?




Really? How do you know?




When it's sunny of course.




And yet...it's not. Go figure. All of the dreams and wishes and good intentions have not made this true.


They're not now in some ways, but the new panels use a tenth of the silicon and can produce ten times the amount of power from a square meter. Add another ten years of tech onto that progress and you should be able to see where things are going.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #96 of 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

They're not now in some ways, but the new panels use a tenth of the silicon and can produce ten times the amount of power from a square meter. Add another ten years of tech onto that progress and you should be able to see where things are going.

When it's sunny, of course.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #97 of 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

So forget nuclear and start thinking about saving energy and the planet.

The planet doesn't need saving.

The planet is going to be right here, doing just fine, long after humans have either ceased to exist or simply moved elsewhere.
You need not worry about the planet.
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #98 of 318
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

When it's sunny, of course.

You should check how many days a year a nuclear power station can't produce energy, it might surprise you.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #99 of 318
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

The planet doesn't need saving.

The planet is going to be right here, doing just fine, long after humans have either ceased to exist or simply moved elsewhere.
You need not worry about the planet.

The planet that made us doesn't deserve having the life drained out of it.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #100 of 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

The planet that made us doesn't deserve having the life drained out of it.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #101 of 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

You should check how many days a year a nuclear power station can't produce energy, it might surprise you.

This is called misdirection. It doesn't actually answer the issue (solar works when its sunny) but instead claims that one other energy solution doesn't always produce energy either. But that's not really the most important thing is it. The real question is how much electricity is generated by these things.

The largest solar electric facility in the US:

Quote:
running and generating power about 30 million kilowatt-hours of electricity annually.

Quote:
The plant, which cost $100 million to construct, covers 140 acres of land at the western edge of the Nellis base. The company that owns the panels is leasing the land at no cost

Quote:
But at 14 megawatts the power output of this system is modest, compared to the solar thermal Nevada One project which generates 64 megawatts of power.

And Solar power plants in the Mojave Desert:

Quote:
have a combined capacity of 354 megawatts (MW) making them the largest solar power installation in the world

And Ivanpah Solar Power Facility:

Quote:
planned to have a capacity of 392 megawatts (MW), making it the world's largest solar thermal power project currently under construction

Quote:
The project will occupy about 4,000 acres

And there's the average annual electricity production of a nuclear power plant in the US:

Quote:
In 2009, the average nuclear power plant generated about 12.3 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh).

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #102 of 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I was asking about your figures on the costs of energy. Those percentages you quoted are not in that report and there's nothing in the report to make those percentages from.

You're a glutton for punishment Hands.

The costs and percentages were from the same DOE site. They are part of a Power Point presentation, and I don't have that software on my Mac. You can research it yourself - I'll try to locate the link for you but I assure you what I've quoted is accurate. Far from being outdated, those figures are for current power generation and that projected for plants scheduled to become active in 2016. Other reports contain projections through 2035.

You're free to speculate with your solar and wind fantasies for that period of time, but the DOE begs to differ.

Their site is enormous. At least we know where how the DOE spends its annual budget. The department certainly hasn't done a thing to promote US nuclear energy - the very reason for its creation in the first place. I don't believe a single US nuke plant has been brought on line since.

Quote:
That report is not based on reality. ... but one thing you can be absolutely sure of is that funding for solar etc is going to become much easier to get which has been and indeed still is difficult.

OK then!

If you're going to characterize a DOE report as fantasy there's no point in continuing this discussion. From our previous discussions I already surmised that would happen anyway.

It's pretty clear what's based in reality and who's not living in it. Next you'll be telling me there's some critical information I'm withholding but rest assured, somewhere, somehow, someone - probably in our benevolent, omniscient Government - is working to provide Mankind with some magic "green energy" formula that will make us totally invisible to the Mother Earth who "made us". All it will take is your trust, your taxes, more onerous regulation, and the more of each the better.

I've quoted reality. You've chosen to simply... believe.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #103 of 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

You should check how many days a year a nuclear power station can't produce energy, it might surprise you.

I did. I was surprised.

Typical capacity factors
  • Wind farms 20-40%
  • Photovoltaic solar in Massachusetts 12-15%
  • Photovoltaic solar in Arizona 19%

Quote:
The net capacity factor of a power plant is the ratio of the actual output of a power plant over a period of time and its output if it had operated at full nameplate capacity the entire time.

  • Nuclear power capacity factor (2009): 90.5%

http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats...arpowerplants/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacit...pacity_factors
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #104 of 318
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


Human thingy with long tubes: Nice planet you have.

Alien: yeah thankyou, and we want to keep it that way.

Human thingy with long tubes: Do you mind if we hang out here.

Alien: no, if you look after it your very welcome. What's your planet like.

Human thingy with long tubes: Oh it used to be ok I guess but now it's completely unlivable on.

Alien: how did that happen?

Human thingy with long tubes: we fucked it up.

Alien: // grabs rifle// and yells, get the fuck off of my land then, now!

Human thingy with long tubes: tries to find another planet to destroy.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #105 of 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Alien: // grabs rifle// and yells, get the fuck off of my land then, now!

Apparently those aliens were smart enough to hold on to their right to property, and employed their version of the Second Amendment to defend it.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #106 of 318
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

I did. I was surprised.

Typical capacity factors
  • Wind farms 20-40%
  • Photovoltaic solar in Massachusetts 12-15%
  • Photovoltaic solar in Arizona 19%


  • Nuclear power capacity factor (2009): 90.5%

http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats...arpowerplants/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacit...pacity_factors

I'll post much more later from a desktop. But here's more of the solar versus nuclear costs- http://theenergycollective.com/oshad...heaper-nuclear
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #107 of 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Human thingy with long tubes: Nice planet you have.

Alien: yeah thankyou, and we want to keep it that way.

Human thingy with long tubes: Do you mind if we hang out here.

Alien: no, if you look after it your very welcome. What's your planet like.

Human thingy with long tubes: Oh it used to be ok I guess but now it's completely unlivable on.

Alien: how did that happen?

Human thingy with long tubes: we fucked it up.

Alien: // grabs rifle// and yells, get the fuck off of my land then, now!

Human thingy with long tubes: tries to find another planet to destroy.

Science fiction is fun.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #108 of 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I was asking about your figures on the costs of energy. Those percentages you quoted are not in that report and there's nothing in the report to make those percentages from.

That report is not based on reality. No future law changes are in that report and that will prove highly consequential for what really happens.

Once in a while I'm reminded of why I'm so good at what I do. It's even more amazing when I impress myself. I'm not easily impressed either.

Here are your sources Hands:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/...ts_aeo2010.pdf

and

http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats...ity-generation

and here's what I remembered from the presentation:

Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

... Not only do solar and wind power account for a few percent of all electric generation, their costs are wildly expensive ... about 50% higher for wind power and 300% higher for solar (PV).

How did I do?

Actual system cost in dollars/MWh

Coal (conventional) 94.6
Natural Gas (conventional) 83.9

Wind (land) 141.5, 49.5% higher than coal and 67% higher than gas
Solar (PV) 395.7, 318% higher than coal and 371% higher than gas

Quote:
... I'd be interested to know where your figures come from and what age of solar and wind you're comparing. The older tech is bound to be less efficient.

These are 2007 US dollars for plants projected to be in service by 2016. So much for "older tech"

The second source derived its information from the first, which includes the effect of ARRA on infrastructure investment and subsidies for "clean energy". Without such subsidies these new plants would clearly be economically unjustifiable. Remember that publication is soon to be superseded by the one I referenced earlier, and will include the new and unexpected abundance of natural gas at an even lower cost than was projected. More reliance on natural gas is almost certain.

Nuclear power, in case you're interested, is 73% less expensive than PV solar. Much of the difference is owed to the fact that nuclear power plants can operate at capacity about three times longer than solar or wind plants.

As far as "future law changes" are concerned, no one can begin to guess. It's possible coal and gas could be legislated out of existence, as it is possible solar and wind could be subsidized to an even greater degree than it already is. However, either of those choices would further strangle the US economy, not likely to happen given its current moribund state. It's also not likely to happen given the more pressing need to service enormous amounts of debt, thanks to profligate Congressional Ds, and much of it held by our pals in China. Without generous subsidies courtesy of the US taxpayer, solar and wind power would wither on the vine along with any technological advances that you may wish to dream of. You'd be wise to question sources reliant on such government funding, since they rely upon it for their continued existence.

Meanwhile, increased reliance on natural gas will bring technological advances only a free market can inspire. Such technological improvements will also occur with coal and oil, just as they have been for decades.

Lastly, the real motivation for any "climate change" legislation is going to require China's participation - now that they're the world's biggest consumer of conventional energy - and growing fast. So far they've indicated they're not interested in playing that game.

After all, communism seeks to suppress religious beliefs.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #109 of 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Science fiction is fun.

Fun, yes. Not to be confused with fact.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #110 of 318
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

When it's sunny, of course.

Of course-


"The concept of space-based solar power was introduced way back in 1968, but its only recently that the world has latched on to the idea. Japan is definitely getting in on the action with its latest spacey plan a $21 billion solar-powered generator in the heavens to produce one gigawatt of energy, or enough to power 294,000 homes. The Japanese government announced the plan back in June, but there has been an important new development Mitsubishi Electric Corp. and industrial design company IHI Corp. are now teaming up in the race to develop new technology within four years that can beam electricity back to Earth without the use of cables.


Japan isnt the only country in the race for space power. Solaren and Californias Pacific Gas and Electric utility are working together on a project to deliver 200 megawatts of power from space over a 15-year period that begins in 2015."
~ http://inhabitat.com/japan-plans-21-...-294000-homes/
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #111 of 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

space-based solar power...now teaming up in the race to develop new technology within four years that can beam electricity back to Earth without the use of cables.

Good. That will be helpful.

Solar & Wind Power: The energy sources of the future...and they always will be.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #112 of 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Solar & Wind Power: The energy sources of the future...and they always will be.

Something tells me Obama's solar shingle idea isn't the answer either...

A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #113 of 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

...Mitsubishi Electric Corp. and industrial design company IHI Corp. are now teaming up in the race to develop new technology within four years that can beam electricity back to Earth without the use of cables.

That idea has been floating around for over forty years. Just don't get in the way of that microwave beam. Oww!

Be sure to reroute all the airplanes too. Oh and don't forget all the birds and cute fluffy little animals. And to think what could happen if someone hacked into that satellite's control system...!

Not that the idea isn't a bad one. It's as feasible now as it was then. Bookmark this page for 2015
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #114 of 318
Thread Starter 
Europes on target to meet and surpass it's 20/20 goals. One new study thinks it'll have 20.7% by 2020 of renewables and there's a big mix of technologies in there.

JG what are those projections for the US for 2020 and how much of that is from ethanol? I'm busy and on iPhone so if you could dig out those figures thatcwould be really helpful. Thanks in advance.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #115 of 318
Thread Starter 
Stunning figures for clean energy in the EU by 2020. Let this be an inspiration to others, especially the nay sayers in the US, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia-

"It is very encouraging that 25 of the 27 E.U. countries intend to either exceed or meet their target, said the European wind associations policy director, Justin Wilkes.
This shows the vast majority of E.U. countries clearly understand the benefits of deploying renewable energy technologies, particularly wind power, Mr. Wilkes said.
The action plans indicated that 34 percent of the blocs electricity demand will be supplied from renewable sources by 2020."
~ http://www.ecoseed.org/en/business-a...2020-plan-weak
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #116 of 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

The action plans indicated that 34 percent of the blocs electricity demand will be supplied from renewable sources by 2020.

More power to them if they can actually DO that... but... come 2020, I seriously doubt 34% of Europe's electricity will come from wind, solar, and tidal.
Just because "the action plans indicated..." doesn't mean it's gonna happen.

In the meantime, there's no way we can quickly replace coal and oil... but nuclear would come closest, soonest. It would be a fantastic way to lower our dependence on coal and oil while we ALSO continue to improve solar generation.
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #117 of 318
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

More power to them if they can actually DO that... but... come 2020, I seriously doubt 34% of Europe's electricity will come from wind, solar, and tidal.
Just because "the action plans indicated..." doesn't mean it's gonna happen.

In the meantime, there's no way we can quickly replace coal and oil... but nuclear would come closest, soonest. It would be a fantastic way to lower our dependence on coal and oil while we ALSO continue to improve solar generation.

Europe definately can. I forget the numbers but more than 20% of Europe's electricity is already powered from renewables. I'll try and find the info and what form of renewables constitute it.

Sweden is dismantling it's nuclear power stations, slower than it was, but it's happening and it's a leader in renewable energy. It certainly is a difficult debate because of the massive co2 output of coal and the very small amount in comparison of nuclear, but countries that push green tech over nuclear then have a greater demand for their clean energy and get more funding for it. That's the best approach. I'd be sad to see the US invest in new nuclear power stations because of the dangers they undoubtedly pose, but in many ways that would be better than coal and clean coal is just a wishful dream with no even remotely economical way of doing. Emphasis also needs to be on conserving energy with effecient vehicles, homes etc. The whole society needs to start to put saving energy as something worthwhile, rather than carrying on with the bigger is better mantra. Not everyone in the US is obsessed with their own ego luckily though, like yourself (I think you said you drove a small efficient car) and that needs to be rewarded financially more than it is. That's where the government can stick it's hand in a bit. Make it even more expensive to buy bigger engined vehicles and even cheaper to buy small one's. Would that appeal to you? Many on the right would probably not want that, though not all, and yet it could have a really positive impact.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #118 of 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Europe definately can. I forget the numbers but more than 20% of Europe's electricity is already powered from renewables. I'll try and find the info and what form of renewables constitute it.

Sweden is dismantling it's nuclear power stations, slower than it was, but it's happening and it's a leader in renewable energy. It certainly is a difficult debate because of the massive co2 output of coal and the very small amount in comparison of nuclear, but countries that push green tech over nuclear then have a greater demand for their clean energy and get more funding for it. That's the best approach. I'd be sad to see the US invest in new nuclear power stations because of the dangers they undoubtedly pose, but in many ways that would be better than coal and clean coal is just a wishful dream with no even remotely economical way of doing. Emphasis also needs to be on conserving energy with effecient vehicles, homes etc. The whole society needs to start to put saving energy as something worthwhile, rather than carrying on with the bigger is better mantra. Not everyone in the US is obsessed with their own ego luckily though, like yourself (I think you said you drove a small efficient car) and that needs to be rewarded financially more than it is. That's where the government can stick it's hand in a bit. Make it even more expensive to buy bigger engined vehicles and even cheaper to buy small one's. Would that appeal to you? Many on the right would probably not want that, though not all, and yet it could have a really positive impact.

So punish large families for having too many kids to fit in the smaller vehicles. Nice. Once again, 2 dimensional argument...
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #119 of 318
Thread Starter 
I'll add to this later-

"Approximately 21 percent of the European Unions electricity came from renewable sources in 2007."
~ http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/electricity.html
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #120 of 318
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

So punish large families for having too many kids to fit in the smaller vehicles. Nice. Once again, 2 dimensional argument...

Lol, every big family needs a big engine! Have you any idea how stupid that sounds?

The reality is massively large and powerful engines are for the fun of it, not because they are needed, far more often than not. Many smaller vehicles can carry lots of people and the vast majority of people don't need massive vehicles.

One of the first thing you notice arriving in the UK after being in the US is how tiny all the cars seem, it's really stands out. And yet Brits manage to get their kids around fine...go figure.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Your ideas, hopes and links for green travel.