Posted by Bill Carter on April 4, 2009, 4:29 am
Eeyore wrote:
>
> Bill Carter wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>>> Bill Carter wrote:
>>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>>> Bill Carter wrote:
>>>>>> Duh! Then what's the problem? In the daytime you have solar generation.
>>>>> Also absurdly expensive.
>>>> No it isn't.
>>> Yes it is. Show me some worked figures. I've posted mine here before. From
memory,
>>> solar electricity even in the most suitable areas of the USA costs > 50c /
kWh when
>>> all proper accounting of costs is done. In more Northern latitudes it's
around $ /
>>> kWh.
>> All proper accounting? I didn't see that post but I expect you will have
>> compared it against all proper accounting associated with all the other
>> energy sources including environmental damage associated with burning,
>> fuel mining, waste disposal, water usage, etc. Maybe you can find all
>> that and repost it.
>
> Does making PV cells not have an environmental cost too ?
Sure. Now you can post it all with 'proper accounting'. Seems to be
taking you a long time.
>>> Do you even know what an insolation map is for example ?
>> I realize you think you are something special. Consider the possibility
>> that this may not actually be the case. We are going to have to invest
>> in transmission infrastructure that allows us to ship energy from the
>> places where it is most appropriately generated to the places where it
>> is needed.
>
> Transmission = losses.
The fuel is free.
>>> Maybe one day someone WILL hit the jackpot and find a way of making cheap
solar
>>> cells but that still doesn't fix the problem of storing the electricity for
use
>>> when it's needed and that's a good proportion of the above costs.
>> In one post you are bashing wind, in the next its solar. These are
>> complementary technologies, they are being developed, and we better
>> pray they will be some form of replacement for what we currently use.
>
> Nuclear WILL be the next step.
Nuclear is going nowhere. In the US the only new plant to come online
in decades will be in 2016 at the earliest. There won't be enough
new nuclear power generation in the US to even replace the reactors
being decommissioned for the foreseeable future.
Posted by Eeyore on April 4, 2009, 3:31 am
Bill Carter wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > Bill Carter wrote:
> >> Eeyore wrote:
> >>> Bill Carter wrote:
> >>>> Eeyore wrote:
> >>>>> Bill Carter wrote:
> >>>>>> Duh! Then what's the problem? In the daytime you have solar generation.
> >>>>> Also absurdly expensive.
> >>>> No it isn't.
> >>> Yes it is. Show me some worked figures. I've posted mine here before. From
memory,
> >>> solar electricity even in the most suitable areas of the USA costs > 50c /
kWh when
> >>> all proper accounting of costs is done. In more Northern latitudes it's
around $ /
> >>> kWh.
> >> All proper accounting? I didn't see that post but I expect you will have
> >> compared it against all proper accounting associated with all the other
> >> energy sources including environmental damage associated with burning,
> >> fuel mining, waste disposal, water usage, etc. Maybe you can find all
> >> that and repost it.
> >
> > Does making PV cells not have an environmental cost too ?
> Sure. Now you can post it all with 'proper accounting'. Seems to be
> taking you a long time.
> >>> Do you even know what an insolation map is for example ?
> >> I realize you think you are something special. Consider the possibility
> >> that this may not actually be the case. We are going to have to invest
> >> in transmission infrastructure that allows us to ship energy from the
> >> places where it is most appropriately generated to the places where it
> >> is needed.
> >
> > Transmission = losses.
> The fuel is free.
The 'plant' isn't.
Graham
Posted by Bill Carter on April 4, 2009, 4:35 pm
Eeyore wrote:
>
> Bill Carter wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>>> Bill Carter wrote:
>>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>>> Bill Carter wrote:
>>>>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>>>>> Bill Carter wrote:
>>>>>>>> Duh! Then what's the problem? In the daytime you have solar generation.
>>>>>>> Also absurdly expensive.
>>>>>> No it isn't.
>>>>> Yes it is. Show me some worked figures. I've posted mine here before. From
memory,
>>>>> solar electricity even in the most suitable areas of the USA costs > 50c /
kWh when
>>>>> all proper accounting of costs is done. In more Northern latitudes it's
around $ /
>>>>> kWh.
>>>> All proper accounting? I didn't see that post but I expect you will have
>>>> compared it against all proper accounting associated with all the other
>>>> energy sources including environmental damage associated with burning,
>>>> fuel mining, waste disposal, water usage, etc. Maybe you can find all
>>>> that and repost it.
>>> Does making PV cells not have an environmental cost too ?
>> Sure. Now you can post it all with 'proper accounting'. Seems to be
>> taking you a long time.
>>
>>>>> Do you even know what an insolation map is for example ?
>>>> I realize you think you are something special. Consider the possibility
>>>> that this may not actually be the case. We are going to have to invest
>>>> in transmission infrastructure that allows us to ship energy from the
>>>> places where it is most appropriately generated to the places where it
>>>> is needed.
>>> Transmission = losses.
>> The fuel is free.
>
> The 'plant' isn't.
Your point being?
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-energy3-2009apr03,0,7532220.story?track=rss
"Wind turbines off U.S. coastlines could potentially supply more than enough
electricity to meet the nation's current demand, the Interior Department
reported Thursday."
I realize you are very busy working up those numbers for all the energy
sources, no doubt this is why all you have time to post is a few words
of nothing, so I'll give you a jumpstart. The numbers here only take into
account the capital, fuel, and operating costs so you'll have to add in
all the rest, but notice how well renewable energy generation compares
to nuclear or even coal.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Comparative_electrical_generation_costs
Posted by Eeyore on April 4, 2009, 7:38 pm
Bill Carter wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > Bill Carter wrote:
> >> Eeyore wrote:
> >>> Bill Carter wrote:
> >>>> Eeyore wrote:
> >>>>> Bill Carter wrote:
> >>>>>> Eeyore wrote:
> >>>>>>> Bill Carter wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Duh! Then what's the problem? In the daytime you have solar
generation.
> >>>>>>> Also absurdly expensive.
> >>>>>> No it isn't.
> >>>>> Yes it is. Show me some worked figures. I've posted mine here before.
From memory,
> >>>>> solar electricity even in the most suitable areas of the USA costs > 50c
/ kWh when
> >>>>> all proper accounting of costs is done. In more Northern latitudes it's
around $ /
> >>>>> kWh.
> >>>> All proper accounting? I didn't see that post but I expect you will have
> >>>> compared it against all proper accounting associated with all the other
> >>>> energy sources including environmental damage associated with burning,
> >>>> fuel mining, waste disposal, water usage, etc. Maybe you can find all
> >>>> that and repost it.
> >>> Does making PV cells not have an environmental cost too ?
> >> Sure. Now you can post it all with 'proper accounting'. Seems to be
> >> taking you a long time.
> >>
> >>>>> Do you even know what an insolation map is for example ?
> >>>> I realize you think you are something special. Consider the possibility
> >>>> that this may not actually be the case. We are going to have to invest
> >>>> in transmission infrastructure that allows us to ship energy from the
> >>>> places where it is most appropriately generated to the places where it
> >>>> is needed.
> >>> Transmission = losses.
> >> The fuel is free.
> >
> > The 'plant' isn't.
> Your point being?
>
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-energy3-2009apr03,0,7532220.story?track=rss
> "Wind turbines off U.S. coastlines could potentially supply more than enough
> electricity to meet the nation's current demand, the Interior Department
> reported Thursday."
I dare say they possibly might but I'm somewhat sceptical. In any case, to cope
with becalmed
situations in certain places, you'd have to massively upgrade the grid to get
electricity from the
east coast to the west or vice-versa. The general 'rule of thumb' is that if you
use wind power for
> 20-25% of your generation you're building up problems in store.
And at what price ?
Incidentally of all the 'green' alternative wind power is currently the best
priced and simplest to
build and configure. Don't get me wrong, I'm not totally anti-it but it's no
panacea.
Graham
Posted by Eeyore on April 4, 2009, 3:33 am
Bill Carter wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> >
> > Nuclear WILL be the next step.
> Nuclear is going nowhere.
You're massively out of touch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Pressurized_Reactor
The orders are rolling in. France generates something like 80% of its
electricity with
nuclear and even has enough left over to export some.
Graham
XML site map
> Bill Carter wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>>> Bill Carter wrote:
>>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>>> Bill Carter wrote:
>>>>>> Duh! Then what's the problem? In the daytime you have solar generation.
>>>>> Also absurdly expensive.
>>>> No it isn't.
>>> Yes it is. Show me some worked figures. I've posted mine here before. From