100% alternative energy worldwide by 2030

[Screaming Eagle]

Who needs nuclear energy when 60,000 acres of windmills can deliver the same electricity at a fraction of the cost.

Didn't you mean 10 times the cost?

 

[Screaming Eagle]

Now that you mention windmills I thought I would mention my favorite thing about windmills: that we pay for them with government money and they never get used. Why not just dump money into the street?

 

[Oddball]

Alternative energy does not exist in any sort of a viable format in the present time. It does not work. Now if I want to live in fantasy land or in what I think the future might be like then it could be a panacea, but so are drugs for a while.

I'll take the drugs. They eventually wear off, but stupid doesn't.

 

[mdn2000]

Doodeee, you are the one that mentioned the 'China Sydrone', not I. I realize that you are not up to speed on the Gen 3 nukes. They are incapable of the 'China Syndrone'.

The problem is that we are seeing the huge cost overruns that we saw in the 70s and 80s. At $3500 per kw. you are well above the present prices for wind and geo-thermal.

But Old Crock, in this thread your source states geothermal is too expensive, are you ignoring your own source, you know, the MIT study

http://www.usmessageboard.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1680144

Yes, Bloomquist is an excellant spokesman for the promotion and expansion of geothermal energy.

Yet Old Criock attempted to discredit the Article and link I posted, Old Crock has yet to go my source and show us what Old Crock is refering to.

This report is the result of a long research project that involved many geothermal stakeholders and industry experts. These persons helped explain how various and complex parameters affecting the cost of geothermal power development and production may be. I specially want to thank:
Gordon Bloomquist for the collaboration, data sharing, advice and comments he provided throughout several research phases.

So Old Crock, you must agree the cost of Geothermal is too high, will result in higher electrical rates, that tax payer money will be given to corporations to make a profit. That costs will have to be hidden to even make Geothermal look feasible. All Old Crocks sources say this.

Old Crock all your source say exactly what I say, I went to the MIT study, again you did not read it. Let me cut and paste from Old Crocks sources.

Read the report than read aritcles quoting the report, the media is cherry picking and OLD CROCK IS CHERRY PICKING THE CHERRY PICKERS.

http://geothermal.inel.gov/publications/future_of_geothermal_energy.pdf

These funds compensate for the higher capital and financing costs expected for early-generation EGS plants, which would be expected as a result of somewhat higher field development (drilling and stimulation) costs per unit of power initially produced. Higher generating costs, in turn, lead to higher perceived financial risk for investors with corresponding higher-debt interest rates and equity rates of return. In effect, the federal investment can be viewed as equivalent to an “absorbed cost” of deployment.
In addition, investments in R&D will also be needed to reduce costs in future deployment of EGS plants. To a great extent, energy markets and government policies will influence the private sector’s interest in developing EGS technology. In today’s economic climate, there is reluctance for private industry to invest its funds without strong guarantees. Thus, initially, it is likely that government will have to fully support EGS fieldwork and supporting R&D. Later, as field sites are established and proven, the private sector will assume a greater role in cofunding projects – especially with government incentives
accelerating the transition to independently financed EGS projects in the private sector. Our analysis indicates that, after a few EGS plants at several sites are built and operating, the technology will improve to a point where development costs and risks would diminish significantly, allowing the levelized cost of producing EGS electricity in the United States to be at or below market prices. Given these issues and growing concerns over long-term energy security, the federal government will need to provide funds directly or introduce other incentives in support of EGS as a long-term “public good,” similar to early federal investments in large hydropower dam projects and nuclear power reactors.

All Old Crock is doing is proving that to sell Geothermal to the public the environuts must cherry pick source and count on people to be stupid, lazy, and ignorant. As long as people are stupid enough to believe Geothermal is good and as long as people are lazy enough not to read the studies the environuts source, than people will remain ingnorant.

So once again, for the third time, Old Crock has cherry picked a source.

 

[mdn2000]

Doodeee, you are the one that mentioned the 'China Sydrone', not I. I realize that you are not up to speed on the Gen 3 nukes. They are incapable of the 'China Syndrone'.

The problem is that we are seeing the huge cost overruns that we saw in the 70s and 80s. At $3500 per kw. you are well above the present prices for wind and geo-thermal.

The following is what I cut and pasted from Old Crock's source, old crock continues to hide his head in his ass when it comes to responding.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1677067

Old Crock, whats your deal, you forget this entire thread, too much pot smoke out there on the left coast or are fucking with me. I got to scratch my head and wonder if your an idiot are you just have to get the last word in. So this again proves Old Crock goes off half cocked and for fun I will respond once again by this time I will simply qoute the same article with no cherry picking of the article. Old Crock, boy are you dumb, next time you post something Old Crock you should not be so lazy and read the whole article, or maybe you should use the scroll bar, on the right of the window, its used to scroll to writing and words that dont fit on your computer screen.

So to help I will post the entire first page of Old Crocks article, first old crocks original cheery picked paragraph.

It would seem, according to this article in the Scientific American, that Geothermal is shaping up to be our cheapest source of energy. Clean, cheap, and 24/7.


Can Geothermal Power Compete with Coal on Price?: Scientific American

Although the environmental benefits of burning less fossil fuel by using renewable sources of energy—such as geothermal, hydropower, solar and wind—are clear, there's been a serious roadblock in their adoption: cost per kilowatt-hour.

That barrier may be opening, however—at least for one of these sources. Two recent reports, among others, suggest that geothermal may actually be cheaper than every other source, including coal. Geothermal power plants work by pumping hot water from deep beneath Earth's surface, which can either be used to turn steam turbines directly or to heat a second, more volatile liquid such as isobutane (which then turns a steam turbine).

Now the whole 1st page of old crocks article.

Although the environmental benefits of burning less fossil fuel by using renewable sources of energy—such as geothermal, hydropower, solar and wind—are clear, there's been a serious roadblock in their adoption: cost per kilowatt-hour.

That barrier may be opening, however—at least for one of these sources. Two recent reports, among others, suggest that geothermal may actually be cheaper than every other source, including coal. Geothermal power plants work by pumping hot water from deep beneath Earth's surface, which can either be used to turn steam turbines directly or to heat a second, more volatile liquid such as isobutane (which then turns a steam turbine).

Combine a new U.S. president pushing a stimulus package that includes $28 billion in direct subsidies for renewable energy with another $13 billion for research and development, and the picture for renewable energy—geothermal power among the options—is brightening. The newest report, from international investment bank Credit Suisse, says geothermal power costs 3.6 cents per kilowatt-hour, versus 5.5 cents per kilowatt-hour for coal.



That does not mean companies are rushing to build geothermal plants: There are a number of assumptions in the geothermal figure. First, there are the tax incentives, which save about 1.9 cents per kilowatt-hour. Those won't necessarily last forever, however—although the stimulus bill extended them through 2013.

Second, the Credit Suisse analysis relied on what is called the "levelized [sic] cost of energy," or the total cost to produce a given unit of energy. Embedded within this figure is an assumption that the money to build a new geothermal plant is available at reasonable interest rates—on the order of 8 percent.

In today's economic climate, that just isn't the case. "In general, there is financing out there for geothermal, but it's difficult to get and it's expensive," Geothermal Energy Association director Karl Gawell told ScientificAmerican.com recently. "You have to have a really premium project to get even credit card interest rates."

That means very high up-front costs. As a result, companies are more likely to spend money on things with lower front-end costs, like natural gas–powered plants, which are cheap to build but relatively expensive to operate because of the cost of the fuel needed to run them.

"Natural gas is popular for this reason," says Kevin Kitz, an engineer at Boise, Idaho–based U.S. Geothermal, Inc, which owns and operates three geothermal sites. "It has a low capital cost, and even if you project cost of natural gas to be high in future, if you use a high [interest rate in your model] that doesn't matter very much."

Natural gas, which came in at 5.2 cents per kilowatt-hour in the analysis, is also popular because it can be deployed anywhere, whereas only 13 U.S. states have identified geothermal resources. Although this limits the scalability of geothermal power, a 2008 survey by the U.S. Geological Survey estimates that the U.S. possesses 40,000 megawatts of geothermal energy that could be exploited using today's technology. (For comparison, the average coal-fired power plant in the U.S. has a capacity of more than 500 MW.)

Old Crock's article explains that the Credit Suisse report is flawed, that geothermal is more expensive than stated, so thanks old crock.

OLD CROCK PROVES GEOTHERMAL IS TOO EXPENSIVE.


.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now that you mention windmills I thought I would mention my favorite thing about windmills: that we pay for them with government money and they never get used. Why not just dump money into the street?

Really fucking stupid, aren't you, ol' Screamy?

BPA: Wind farm system sets output milestone | Oregon Business News - OregonLive.com


BPA: Wind farm system sets output milestone
By Ted Sickinger, The Oregonian
August 12, 2009, 4:55PM
The Bonneville Power Administration says the wind farms plugged into its transmission system blew past a notable milestone earlier this month, sending out 2,000 megawatts of electricity for more than an hour.

That's enough to power all of Seattle and Portland for that hour.

The 22 wind farms in eastern Oregon and Washington hit a new peak of 2,089 megawatts on the evening of Aug. 6., doubling the previous peak of 1,000 megawatts recorded in January 2008.

BPA operates three quarters of the region's transmission system and is responsible for balancing the region's energy supply and demand to keep the grid operating smoothly. As more of that energy comes from intermittent sources like wind, the agency has been forced to adapt its hydro system and build new transmission capability to keep pace.

Six of the 22 wind farms on its system came on line this year, and the agency expects wind power to triple in the next five years.

 

[Old Rocks]

Who needs nuclear energy when 60,000 acres of windmills can deliver the same electricity at a fraction of the cost.

And grow wheat, cows, or anything else applicable on that acreage.

 

[Screaming Eagle]

Now that you mention windmills I thought I would mention my favorite thing about windmills: that we pay for them with government money and they never get used. Why not just dump money into the street?

Really fucking stupid, aren't you, ol' Screamy?

BPA: Wind farm system sets output milestone | Oregon Business News - OregonLive.com


BPA: Wind farm system sets output milestone
By Ted Sickinger, The Oregonian
August 12, 2009, 4:55PM
The Bonneville Power Administration says the wind farms plugged into its transmission system blew past a notable milestone earlier this month, sending out 2,000 megawatts of electricity for more than an hour.

That's enough to power all of Seattle and Portland for that hour.

The 22 wind farms in eastern Oregon and Washington hit a new peak of 2,089 megawatts on the evening of Aug. 6., doubling the previous peak of 1,000 megawatts recorded in January 2008.

BPA operates three quarters of the region's transmission system and is responsible for balancing the region's energy supply and demand to keep the grid operating smoothly. As more of that energy comes from intermittent sources like wind, the agency has been forced to adapt its hydro system and build new transmission capability to keep pace.

Six of the 22 wind farms on its system came on line this year, and the agency expects wind power to triple in the next five years.

You realize that this is in no way a rebuttal to my point, don't you? A very large number of windmills are built by companies just to collect the government payoff for building one. Many are built where there is no need, no transmission capability, and no place in need of more electricity is within transmissible range. In other words, they are completely useless. If you ever drive through some of these wind farms you may notice that only around 1/4th are actually in operation even when there is sufficient wind, and some wind farms aren't even on the grid.

 

[mdn2000]

Now that you mention windmills I thought I would mention my favorite thing about windmills: that we pay for them with government money and they never get used. Why not just dump money into the street?

Really fucking stupid, aren't you, ol' Screamy?

BPA: Wind farm system sets output milestone | Oregon Business News - OregonLive.com


BPA: Wind farm system sets output milestone
By Ted Sickinger, The Oregonian
August 12, 2009, 4:55PM
The Bonneville Power Administration says the wind farms plugged into its transmission system blew past a notable milestone earlier this month, sending out 2,000 megawatts of electricity for more than an hour.

That's enough to power all of Seattle and Portland for that hour.

The 22 wind farms in eastern Oregon and Washington hit a new peak of 2,089 megawatts on the evening of Aug. 6., doubling the previous peak of 1,000 megawatts recorded in January 2008.

BPA operates three quarters of the region's transmission system and is responsible for balancing the region's energy supply and demand to keep the grid operating smoothly. As more of that energy comes from intermittent sources like wind, the agency has been forced to adapt its hydro system and build new transmission capability to keep pace.

Six of the 22 wind farms on its system came on line this year, and the agency expects wind power to triple in the next five years.

Old Crock, the article is a press release of BPA posing as an article. There is no technical information at all. Can you provide the actual BPA report and not the press release. The answer is no, Old Crcok never provides another source with technical information when requested for when challenged with fact a liar can only hide.

The biggest lie is Old Crock's claim that 2 gwh is enough power to supply two cities, it is not. Seattle alone requires over 3.5 gwh.

Without seeing the actual report and only a press release by a corportation there is no way to no what they are speaking of. The only reasonable explanation is that Old Crock is stating that wind farms are able to provide enough power to supply seattle when everyone is sleeping in the middle of the night during the lowest peak usage season, summer.

Everyone knows that Seattle needs more power in the winter, not the summer, more power during the day and not the night.

Further if we assume there are no other twisting of facts BPA was only able to produce 2 gwh for about 14 minutes in the last year. Given the windy season is now over and we are entering peak electrical usage the massive investment in the polluting wind farm is now sitting idle, huge waste of CO2.

How much energy is used to produce one ton of fiberglass.

How many tons of fiberglass in one windmill.

How many millions of tons of CO2 was released into the environment producing millions of tons of fiberglass

How is it a better use of the dwindling earths precious resources to have massive giant copper electrical generators sit idle for 99% of the year while tax payers subsidize the wind farm sitting idle.

There are no answers from the liberal/marxist, this is all about controling people, stealing our money to give to rich which are the environuts.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

These are not conservatives, they are Conservatives. And too damned dumb even to do something as simple as checking the November issue of the Scientific American in a store to see if the article exists. But that would require basis logic, which this bunch sorely lack.

They are the patriots that wish to give our economy to Saudi Arabia and China. They are the people that would prefer a point system of electrical generation so that all the wealth can flow to a small number of people. They are the people that wish to saddle the next generation with the illnesses from the dirty coal plants, and the ecological damage from the coal mining. They are the people that will saddle the coming generations with the damage that will result from the GHGs released into the atmosphere. And they routinely wrap themselves in the flag.

I read Popular Mechanics and Popular Science to see what we may have 5 or 10 years ago and I am STUNNED about some VERY promising inventions that could change our world in VERY significant ways. The "Conservatives" want the status quo because they can't conceive of ANY change, they are flat out get terrified of NEW ways of doing things.
One thing you must do is check the WHOLE picture from a new technology to be sure it doesn't have unintended consequenses, lkie C02 sequestation, which could cause damage to down stream aquifers, BAD STUFF if you carbonate a massive aguifer or aquiclude that a major population center relys upon.

 

[Oddball]

I read Popular Mechanics and Popular Science to see what we may have 5 or 10 years ago and I am STUNNED about some VERY promising inventions that could change our world in VERY significant ways. The "Conservatives" want the status quo because they can't conceive of ANY change, they are flat out get terrified of NEW ways of doing things.

What is this...National Strawman Day?

 

[Cold Fusion38]

My question is WHY do so many people seem to be SO AFRAID of this idea?

You are mistaking fear for caution, something that conservatives bring to our government but liberals do not. Take this scenario:

On one hand, you have a small chance (10%) of curing cancer by spending a fortune and risking going broke in the attempt but all the odds are stacked against you.

On the other you have a cure for heart disease (90%) that is almost there, just needs a little more of a push to finish. The odds for this are stacked for you.

You choose one, you have a slim chance of saving billions of lives but at a huge cost and risk, you choose the other which doesn't save as many but there's almost no risk or cost ... which would you pick?

Here we have an alternative energy source already, which has low risk and low cost .... nuclear ... or the high risk high cost of trying to advance basically fantasy fuels ... which do you choose?

I would resove the problem that we are CLOSE to solving but I sure as hell wouldn't IGNORE the other problem......Cancer kills many and as I understand it cancer is NOT an easy way to go.


And by the way I have advocated nuclear power so many times I can't count them. I would like to see 10-20 new nuke power plants on line by 2020. I would let them put one in my back yard if it would help the US be energy independent.

 

[mdn2000]

These are not conservatives, they are Conservatives. And too damned dumb even to do something as simple as checking the November issue of the Scientific American in a store to see if the article exists. But that would require basis logic, which this bunch sorely lack.

They are the patriots that wish to give our economy to Saudi Arabia and China. They are the people that would prefer a point system of electrical generation so that all the wealth can flow to a small number of people. They are the people that wish to saddle the next generation with the illnesses from the dirty coal plants, and the ecological damage from the coal mining. They are the people that will saddle the coming generations with the damage that will result from the GHGs released into the atmosphere. And they routinely wrap themselves in the flag.

I read Popular Mechanics and Popular Science to see what we may have 5 or 10 years ago and I am STUNNED about some VERY promising inventions that could change our world in VERY significant ways. The "Conservatives" want the status quo because they can't conceive of ANY change, they are flat out get terrified of NEW ways of doing things.
One thing you must do is check the WHOLE picture from a new technology to be sure it doesn't have unintended consequenses, lkie C02 sequestation, which could cause damage to down stream aquifers, BAD STUFF if you carbonate a massive aguifer or aquiclude that a major population center relys upon.

So prove your post, you check the "whole picture", so tell us the whole picture, wind mills use tons of fiberglass, did you check, ever go to Vesta's site to see what is a wind mill, tell us how much fiberglass is used, you checked the whole picture right, tell us about fiberglass production, you checked the whole picture right, I cant wait.

Tell us how much energy and which types of energy are used to make one ton of fiberglass, you said you checked the whole picture.



So how much energy and which types does it take to make a ton of fiberglass?

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Nuclear Bombshell: $26 Billion cost — $10,800 per kilowatt! — killed Ontario nuclear bid « Climate Progress

Ontario government put its nuclear power plans on hold last month because the bid from Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., the only “compliant” one received, was more than three times higher than what the province expected to pay, the Star has learned.

Sources close to the bidding, one involved directly in one of the bids, said that adding two next-generation Candu reactors at Darlington generating station would have cost around $26 billion.

It means a single project would have wiped out the province’s nuclear-power expansion budget for the next 20 years, leaving no money for at least two more multibillion-dollar refurbishment projects.

Nearly $11,000 per kw. So much for cheap nuclear.

“It’s shockingly high,” said Wesley Stevens, an energy analyst at Navigant Consulting in Toronto.

Somehow I doubt that the French are paying $10,000 per KW hour.


I think we need to have the FED build them and then lease them to power cos. The BIGGEST problem with nuke is NOT waste it is NOT safety it is the "Not in my backyard" syndrome. The Fed is the ONLY entity that could get through the red tape and get them made. Normally I am opposed to emminent domain but cheap abundent power that does NOT rely on fossil fuels is FAR too important to let some outdated county ordinance stop them.

 

[mdn2000]

These are not conservatives, they are Conservatives. And too damned dumb even to do something as simple as checking the November issue of the Scientific American in a store to see if the article exists. But that would require basis logic, which this bunch sorely lack.
.

We are too dumb, you posted a link to a press release that refers to an article that references a report. Where is the report? Where is the article?

We are too dumb to the store and get the issue, gee, if we are that dumb and its that simple and your the one pointing this out why has OLD CROCK not done what is simple. Why is OLD CROCK too dumb to do what he expects others to do when its what OLD CROCK has based this thread on.

Basic logic states if you are going to site a report as conclusive and start a thread on said report you do not source the press release, you do not source an article, you source the report.

This is the green energy movements proof, secret reports, articles that reference only parts of the report.

Old Crock is completely full of shit, Old Crock is why green energy is a terrible idea, it was sold to fools with no proof and now all the USA is paying the price.

I have yet to see one Green Energy supporter offer one fact or even one idea of their own thinking of what it takes to manufactorer or build green energy.

So Old Crock is too dumb to do something as simple that basic logic dictates, post the source for the premise of Old Crock's thread.

 

[mdn2000]

Nuclear Bombshell: $26 Billion cost — $10,800 per kilowatt! — killed Ontario nuclear bid « Climate Progress

Ontario government put its nuclear power plans on hold last month because the bid from Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., the only “compliant” one received, was more than three times higher than what the province expected to pay, the Star has learned.

Sources close to the bidding, one involved directly in one of the bids, said that adding two next-generation Candu reactors at Darlington generating station would have cost around $26 billion.

It means a single project would have wiped out the province’s nuclear-power expansion budget for the next 20 years, leaving no money for at least two more multibillion-dollar refurbishment projects.

Nearly $11,000 per kw. So much for cheap nuclear.

“It’s shockingly high,” said Wesley Stevens, an energy analyst at Navigant Consulting in Toronto.

Somehow I doubt that the French are paying $10,000 per KW hour.


I think we need to have the FED build them and then lease them to power cos. The BIGGEST problem with nuke is NOT waste it is NOT safety it is the "Not in my backyard" syndrome. The Fed is the ONLY entity that could get through the red tape and get them made. Normally I am opposed to emminent domain but cheap abundent power that does NOT rely on fossil fuels is FAR too important to let some outdated county ordinance stop them.

You seem smart, but at the same time to state over and over that conservatives are afraid is just wrong.

I have looked into green energy, as we know it today it is too expensive and too dirty. Its being shoved down our throats, maybe you dont pay an electric bill but I do and its too expensive and going up, is the price of water which is directly related to the cost of electricity.

Can you tell us how much electricity it takes, what the different types of energy are used to make one ton of fiberglass.

Old Crock cannot, Chris cannot, these too do not know what they speak of.

Can you tell us or at least admit you need to find out how much energy and which types.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Look guys if we, at the very least, would give a tax credit for new housing developments to have geothermal heat/cooling (like Bush's Craford rance which I respect a great deal) and solar panels which are to the point where they could be litterally PAINTED on the roof then we could lessen power draw from fossil fuel power plants by a significant degree. Here's the thing that "Conservatives" refuse to acknowledge. During PEAK demand solar will produce the MOST energy= no more rolling black/brown outs in CA. You could come home to a nice cool house w/o dreding your power bill each month. There are many LITTLE things like solar/wind/geo therm/ hydro that would EVENTUALLY add up to major power production which will NEVER run out EVER! So why NOT pursue those techs while we STILL rely on fossil fuels for the forseeable future. Let's be PROactive instead of REactive to our energy needs so we aren't held hostage by cos like ENRON who JOKED about screwing little old ladies during CA's power crisis.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

These are not conservatives, they are Conservatives. And too damned dumb even to do something as simple as checking the November issue of the Scientific American in a store to see if the article exists. But that would require basis logic, which this bunch sorely lack.

They are the patriots that wish to give our economy to Saudi Arabia and China. They are the people that would prefer a point system of electrical generation so that all the wealth can flow to a small number of people. They are the people that wish to saddle the next generation with the illnesses from the dirty coal plants, and the ecological damage from the coal mining. They are the people that will saddle the coming generations with the damage that will result from the GHGs released into the atmosphere. And they routinely wrap themselves in the flag.

I can't believe you people. How is it that you were ever convinced that solar panels here in the U.S. is somehow going to lead to energy independence or a lessened need for foreign oil? Our electricity is already produced domestically. Solar panels do not fit in gas cans. Electricity is not the same thing as oil. Shit.

Alternative energy does not exist in any sort of a viable format in the present time. It does not work. Now if I want to live in fantasy land or in what I think the future might be like then it could be a panacea, but so are drugs for a while.

Maybe you should look into what Germany has done with Wind power. So would you rather get wind mills from SUZLON, G.E. or some other DOMESTIC producers?

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Who needs nuclear energy when 60,000 acres of windmills can deliver the same electricity at a fraction of the cost.

And grow wheat, cows, or anything else applicable on that acreage.

Neither cows nor food crops grow in canyons. The biggest bitch I have heard about Wind Farms is they ruin the view. And hey you guys who are going to try to trash me I was PISSED when the Kennedy's didn't want an off shore Wind farm because it would ruin THEIR view.......FUCK EM if they think their VIEW is more important then alternative domestic energy production.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Nuclear Bombshell: $26 Billion cost — $10,800 per kilowatt! — killed Ontario nuclear bid « Climate Progress

Ontario government put its nuclear power plans on hold last month because the bid from Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., the only “compliant” one received, was more than three times higher than what the province expected to pay, the Star has learned.

Sources close to the bidding, one involved directly in one of the bids, said that adding two next-generation Candu reactors at Darlington generating station would have cost around $26 billion.

It means a single project would have wiped out the province’s nuclear-power expansion budget for the next 20 years, leaving no money for at least two more multibillion-dollar refurbishment projects.

Nearly $11,000 per kw. So much for cheap nuclear.

“It’s shockingly high,” said Wesley Stevens, an energy analyst at Navigant Consulting in Toronto.

Somehow I doubt that the French are paying $10,000 per KW hour.


I think we need to have the FED build them and then lease them to power cos. The BIGGEST problem with nuke is NOT waste it is NOT safety it is the "Not in my backyard" syndrome. The Fed is the ONLY entity that could get through the red tape and get them made. Normally I am opposed to emminent domain but cheap abundent power that does NOT rely on fossil fuels is FAR too important to let some outdated county ordinance stop them.

You seem smart, but at the same time to state over and over that conservatives are afraid is just wrong.

I have looked into green energy, as we know it today it is too expensive and too dirty. Its being shoved down our throats, maybe you dont pay an electric bill but I do and its too expensive and going up, is the price of water which is directly related to the cost of electricity.

Can you tell us how much electricity it takes, what the different types of energy are used to make one ton of fiberglass.

Old Crock cannot, Chris cannot, these too do not know what they speak of.

Can you tell us or at least admit you need to find out how much energy and which types.

Well maybe we can produce them from fibers from commercial hemp but that would TERRIFY the extreme right because they have NO IDEA what the diff is between MARAJUANA and HEMP. As for fiber glass why don't you tell ME how much it takes and costs since it is YOU who have brought it up as an argument against alternative energy. I have seen people claim that plug in electric cars would produce FAR more toxins than just using the same old IC technology, I have also seen the same claims about solar power even though the tech has been advancing so fast that even comparing it to two years ago is irrelevant to what is available today. Then all the CLAIMS about how BAD wind farms would be for the enviroment. YOUR CLAIM, YOU PROVE IT!