Advances in batteries/energy thread

Your idea fails to take into account that you must use fossil fuels to build that progressive utopia. The 50$ Trillion Dollar Scam, making the Banks, Wall st., and Corporations even richer. 50$ Trillion dollars spent building is a massive rise in CO2.
No I am not, as I said the idea is to keep the use of fosil fuels frozen at certain level. So , I am aware that fosil fuels will continue to be used at least during the next 50 years ( with some luck will have fusion by that time ) .
50 trillion ? where do you get that figure from ?
And again , if corporations get rich fine ... as far as they pay their fair share of taxes and not the current effective tax rate of 10% .
 
Eighty years ago nuclear reactors didn't exist. In fact they sounded like a pipe dream. What changed that ? Research. In fact government funded research. Renewables don't use 10,000 times more coal and hydrocarbons, that would just be solar.

Renewables do use 10,000 more hydrocarbons, How much Coal do you figure is used to build a Wind Mill, A Wind Farm equivalent to a Nuclear Power plant? And for the sake of argument we can forget the fact that no amount of Wind Mills, or Wind Turbines will ever replace the power of 1 nuclear power plant.

So lets pretend you could replace a Nuclear Power plant with Wind Mills (2000 year old technology), how many would it take and how much Coal and Hydrocarbons would it take to build them.

I bet you won't even try to answer that question, nobody ever does, and if you can not account for the materials you use, your argument has no basis in reality.

So go ahead, you stated they don't use 10,000 times more, so show us how much they do use, or show us you know nothing.
 
Your idea fails to take into account that you must use fossil fuels to build that progressive utopia. The 50$ Trillion Dollar Scam, making the Banks, Wall st., and Corporations even richer. 50$ Trillion dollars spent building is a massive rise in CO2.
No I am not, as I said the idea is to keep the use of fosil fuels frozen at certain level. So , I am aware that fosil fuels will continue to be used at least during the next 50 years ( with some luck will have fusion by that time ) .
50 trillion ? where do you get that figure from ?
And again , if corporations get rich fine ... as far as they pay their fair share of taxes and not the current effective tax rate of 10% .
right, show us the effective rate of tax, how about a link to that.

How do you keep fossil fuels frozen at a certain level when you must increase the use of fossil fuels to build Solar and Wind? 50$ trillion dollars is proposed to be spent on renewables, that is a helluva a lot of fossil fuel, coal, hydrocarbons used in manufacture. Production actually never ends, it is continuous, forever. Renewables is the largest source of new pollution in the world.
 
And for the sake of argument we can forget the fact that no amount of Wind Mills, or Wind Turbines will ever replace the power of 1 nuclear power plant.
Really?
A nuclear plant produces between 4,000 MW and 502 MW

"U.S. wind power installed capacity in 2012 exceeded 51,630 MW and supplies 3% of the nation's electricity"
So , there you go the US already has the equivalent of 12 large nuclear plants .

Wind farm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
So lets pretend you could replace a Nuclear Power plant with Wind Mills (2000 year old technology), how many would it take and how much Coal and Hydrocarbons would it take to build them.

"The costs for a utility scale wind turbine range from about $1.3 million to $2.2 million per MW of nameplate capacity installed"
Taking the average price we get the 1.75 Million figure per MW of capacity.
Assumen 66% of that cost comes from energy and the rest from raw materials and labour.we get roughly 1,155,000 USD of energy. Since 82% of that comes from non renewables we adjust the figure to $947,000 of non renewable energy. This equals to 7,892,000 kwh. This will be roughle equal to burning 240,000 gallons of gasoline.

Now , assuming a net capacity of 30% which is probably too low, a 1MW turbine will generate about 8,000 kwh per day, so it will recover its carbon expenditure in 1,000 days.
Oh, and by the by constructing a nucler plant also requires a lot of energy ... those things don't grow on trees.

There you go Elektra

Wind Turbine Net Capacity Factor — 50% the New Normal?
How much do wind turbines cost?
 
Your idea fails to take into account that you must use fossil fuels to build that progressive utopia. The 50$ Trillion Dollar Scam, making the Banks, Wall st., and Corporations even richer. 50$ Trillion dollars spent building is a massive rise in CO2.
No I am not, as I said the idea is to keep the use of fosil fuels frozen at certain level. So , I am aware that fosil fuels will continue to be used at least during the next 50 years ( with some luck will have fusion by that time ) .
50 trillion ? where do you get that figure from ?
And again , if corporations get rich fine ... as far as they pay their fair share of taxes and not the current effective tax rate of 10% .
right, show us the effective rate of tax, how about a link to that.

How do you keep fossil fuels frozen at a certain level when you must increase the use of fossil fuels to build Solar and Wind? 50$ trillion dollars is proposed to be spent on renewables, that is a helluva a lot of fossil fuel, coal, hydrocarbons used in manufacture. Production actually never ends, it is continuous, forever. Renewables is the largest source of new pollution in the world.

There you go
GAO: U.S. corporations pay average effective tax rate of 12.6%

Regarding fosil fuel levels: obviously there will be a slight increase first but after that there will be continuous decrease until 2012 levels are reached.
 
Your ObamaBattery does not exist yet, so I at best can only have a grudge against the idea of it. As far as Renewables goes, sure I have a grudge against being forced to pay for something that does not work and uses a 10,000 times more coal and hydrocarbons than natural gas or nuclear power.
Eighty years ago nuclear reactors didn't exist. In fact they sounded like a pipe dream. What changed that ? Research. In fact government funded research. Renewables don't use 10,000 times more coal and hydrocarbons, that would just be solar.


The fact that the republican party has become anti-investment and research is one of the reasons why I will be voting democrat. 40 years ago the republican party would of been in agreement that it was necessary.
 
The fact that the republican party has become anti-investment and research is one of the reasons why I will be voting democrat. 40 years ago the republican party would of been in agreement that it was necessary.
Anit-investment and Research, you mean like when you Democrats shut down the Super Particle Accelerator? Anti-investment? Is that what you call Ivanpah, or Soylndra, or SunEdison, or Abongea which are all bankrupt, failed Green, Clean, Renewable energy companies.

Investment is one thing, but throwing money at failed companies simply because they give campaign money and donations to your favorite political party is another.

Diverting all the money in the world and more, over 50$ Trillion dollars to Solar and Wind, leaves little to none for proven technologies.
 
And for the sake of argument we can forget the fact that no amount of Wind Mills, or Wind Turbines will ever replace the power of 1 nuclear power plant.
Really?
A nuclear plant produces between 4,000 MW and 502 MW

"U.S. wind power installed capacity in 2012 exceeded 51,630 MW and supplies 3% of the nation's electricity"
So , there you go the US already has the equivalent of 12 large nuclear plants .

Wind farm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
From Wikipedia? 51,630 mwh of Installed Capacity is not the same as Electricity delivered to the grid.

Ever here of "Available Capacity", or "Capacity Factor". both are significant when it comes to Wind Power. The available capacity is simply a technical term stating they do not produce electricity if the wind is not blowing. The capacity factor is what a wind turbine produces in real conditions.

A 32% capacity factor is generous, now at best your Wind Mills equal 4 nuclear power plants. 4 nuclear power plants produce power for an easy 400 days straight, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

A Wind Mill will produce power when the wind blows, tell me, 3 months from now, how much will the wind blow? Or better yet, how much will the Wind Blow at noon tomorrow? Or at noon a week from now?

A nuclear plant produces 4,000 MW? You mean mwh? Technically speaking, you are wrong, by a long shot. You should come back with some real numbers and link for that gross error.
 
So lets pretend you could replace a Nuclear Power plant with Wind Mills (2000 year old technology), how many would it take and how much Coal and Hydrocarbons would it take to build them.

"The costs for a utility scale wind turbine range from about $1.3 million to $2.2 million per MW of nameplate capacity installed"
Taking the average price we get the 1.75 Million figure per MW of capacity.
Assumen 66% of that cost comes from energy and the rest from raw materials and labour.we get roughly 1,155,000 USD of energy. Since 82% of that comes from non renewables we adjust the figure to $947,000 of non renewable energy. This equals to 7,892,000 kwh. This will be roughle equal to burning 240,000 gallons of gasoline.

Now , assuming a net capacity of 30% which is probably too low, a 1MW turbine will generate about 8,000 kwh per day, so it will recover its carbon expenditure in 1,000 days.
Oh, and by the by constructing a nucler plant also requires a lot of energy ... those things don't grow on trees.

There you go Elektra

Wind Turbine Net Capacity Factor — 50% the New Normal?
How much do wind turbines cost?
A nuclear power plant will give us power tomorrow at noon, a Wind Turbine will not, we actually never know, when the wind will blow.

A nuclear power plant is paid for by private corporations because it makes economic sense.

A wind turbine is only built with free money, grants, subsidies, I have watched Wind Turbine companies go bankrupt over and over in California. Wind Turbines only exist as a function of a government that breaks the law and dictates that they will be built, the expense is forced onto the public.

All your figures are a useless comparison, everybody knows Wind Turbines are random, intermittent power sources at best.

Your figures do not include the lubrication a Wind Turbine requires, 300 gallons of oil a year, multiplied by 1,000,000 wind turbines equals how much increased oil consumption by the Wind Turbine sector?
 
There you go
GAO: U.S. corporations pay average effective tax rate of 12.6%

Regarding fosil fuel levels: obviously there will be a slight increase first but after that there will be continuous decrease until 2012 levels are reached.
From your link, which is an article, not a report or study, hardly is an article a source for a serious discussion of taxes. How about state tax, local tax, property tax, workman's comp, health insurance (which the supreme court calls a tax), social securtiy tax, medicare tax, mandatory liability insurance.

Either way, an article is highly subjective, especially an article from CNN. Let us see the report.

The federal corporate tax rate stands at 35%, and jumps to 39.2% when state rates are taken into account.
 
And for the sake of argument we can forget the fact that no amount of Wind Mills, or Wind Turbines will ever replace the power of 1 nuclear power plant.
Really?
A nuclear plant produces between 4,000 MW and 502 MW

"U.S. wind power installed capacity in 2012 exceeded 51,630 MW and supplies 3% of the nation's electricity"
So , there you go the US already has the equivalent of 12 large nuclear plants .

Wind farm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
From Wikipedia? 51,630 mwh of Installed Capacity is not the same as Electricity delivered to the grid.

Ever here of "Available Capacity", or "Capacity Factor". both are significant when it comes to Wind Power. The available capacity is simply a technical term stating they do not produce electricity if the wind is not blowing. The capacity factor is what a wind turbine produces in real conditions.

A 32% capacity factor is generous, now at best your Wind Mills equal 4 nuclear power plants. 4 nuclear power plants produce power for an easy 400 days straight, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

A Wind Mill will produce power when the wind blows, tell me, 3 months from now, how much will the wind blow? Or better yet, how much will the Wind Blow at noon tomorrow? Or at noon a week from now?

A nuclear plant produces 4,000 MW? You mean mwh? Technically speaking, you are wrong, by a long shot. You should come back with some real numbers and link for that gross error.
No , that's was just supposed to be the installed capacity of a nuclear plant : 4,000 to 502 MW. I am not talking about the energy production.
Also, the capacity factor for a nuclear plant is not 100%, but about 90%,
 
So lets pretend you could replace a Nuclear Power plant with Wind Mills (2000 year old technology), how many would it take and how much Coal and Hydrocarbons would it take to build them.

"The costs for a utility scale wind turbine range from about $1.3 million to $2.2 million per MW of nameplate capacity installed"
Taking the average price we get the 1.75 Million figure per MW of capacity.
Assumen 66% of that cost comes from energy and the rest from raw materials and labour.we get roughly 1,155,000 USD of energy. Since 82% of that comes from non renewables we adjust the figure to $947,000 of non renewable energy. This equals to 7,892,000 kwh. This will be roughle equal to burning 240,000 gallons of gasoline.

Now , assuming a net capacity of 30% which is probably too low, a 1MW turbine will generate about 8,000 kwh per day, so it will recover its carbon expenditure in 1,000 days.
Oh, and by the by constructing a nucler plant also requires a lot of energy ... those things don't grow on trees.

There you go Elektra

Wind Turbine Net Capacity Factor — 50% the New Normal?
How much do wind turbines cost?
A nuclear power plant will give us power tomorrow at noon, a Wind Turbine will not, we actually never know, when the wind will blow.

A nuclear power plant is paid for by private corporations because it makes economic sense.

A wind turbine is only built with free money, grants, subsidies, I have watched Wind Turbine companies go bankrupt over and over in California. Wind Turbines only exist as a function of a government that breaks the law and dictates that they will be built, the expense is forced onto the public.

All your figures are a useless comparison, everybody knows Wind Turbines are random, intermittent power sources at best.

Your figures do not include the lubrication a Wind Turbine requires, 300 gallons of oil a year, multiplied by 1,000,000 wind turbines equals how much increased oil consumption by the Wind Turbine sector?
300 gallons of oil is a negligible figure compared to the amount of energy produced by a 1MW wind turbine:
1 gallon equals = 33kwh
1 MW turbine produces 8,000 wkh per day . 33/8000 = 0.0041. So that means an adjustment of 0.4% to my previous figure. In many places you can use pumped hydro to store energy. Also the compressed air technology of LightSail Energy seems quite promissing. I'm quite confident storage will not be a problem in the near future.
Edit : 2017 which is the year in which LightSail is planning to release its product.
 
Last edited:
And for the sake of argument we can forget the fact that no amount of Wind Mills, or Wind Turbines will ever replace the power of 1 nuclear power plant.
Really?
A nuclear plant produces between 4,000 MW and 502 MW

"U.S. wind power installed capacity in 2012 exceeded 51,630 MW and supplies 3% of the nation's electricity"
So , there you go the US already has the equivalent of 12 large nuclear plants .

Wind farm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
From Wikipedia? 51,630 mwh of Installed Capacity is not the same as Electricity delivered to the grid.

Ever here of "Available Capacity", or "Capacity Factor". both are significant when it comes to Wind Power. The available capacity is simply a technical term stating they do not produce electricity if the wind is not blowing. The capacity factor is what a wind turbine produces in real conditions.

A 32% capacity factor is generous, now at best your Wind Mills equal 4 nuclear power plants. 4 nuclear power plants produce power for an easy 400 days straight, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

A Wind Mill will produce power when the wind blows, tell me, 3 months from now, how much will the wind blow? Or better yet, how much will the Wind Blow at noon tomorrow? Or at noon a week from now?

A nuclear plant produces 4,000 MW? You mean mwh? Technically speaking, you are wrong, by a long shot. You should come back with some real numbers and link for that gross error.
No , that's was just supposed to be the installed capacity of a nuclear plant : 4,000 to 502 MW. I am not talking about the energy production.
Also, the capacity factor for a nuclear plant is not 100%, but about 90%,
No nuclear plant has an installed capacity of what you state, link if you like but it is obvious you do not kniw anything beyond your latestest google search.
 
So lets pretend you could replace a Nuclear Power plant with Wind Mills (2000 year old technology), how many would it take and how much Coal and Hydrocarbons would it take to build them.

"The costs for a utility scale wind turbine range from about $1.3 million to $2.2 million per MW of nameplate capacity installed"
Taking the average price we get the 1.75 Million figure per MW of capacity.
Assumen 66% of that cost comes from energy and the rest from raw materials and labour.we get roughly 1,155,000 USD of energy. Since 82% of that comes from non renewables we adjust the figure to $947,000 of non renewable energy. This equals to 7,892,000 kwh. This will be roughle equal to burning 240,000 gallons of gasoline.

Now , assuming a net capacity of 30% which is probably too low, a 1MW turbine will generate about 8,000 kwh per day, so it will recover its carbon expenditure in 1,000 days.
Oh, and by the by constructing a nucler plant also requires a lot of energy ... those things don't grow on trees.

There you go Elektra

Wind Turbine Net Capacity Factor — 50% the New Normal?
How much do wind turbines cost?
A nuclear power plant will give us power tomorrow at noon, a Wind Turbine will not, we actually never know, when the wind will blow.

A nuclear power plant is paid for by private corporations because it makes economic sense.

A wind turbine is only built with free money, grants, subsidies, I have watched Wind Turbine companies go bankrupt over and over in California. Wind Turbines only exist as a function of a government that breaks the law and dictates that they will be built, the expense is forced onto the public.

All your figures are a useless comparison, everybody knows Wind Turbines are random, intermittent power sources at best.

Your figures do not include the lubrication a Wind Turbine requires, 300 gallons of oil a year, multiplied by 1,000,000 wind turbines equals how much increased oil consumption by the Wind Turbine sector?
300 gallons of oil is a negligible figure compared to the amount of energy produced by a 1MW wind turbine:
1 gallon equals = 33kwh
1 MW turbine produces 8,000 wkh per day . 33/8000 = 0.0041. So that means an adjustment of 0.4% to my previous figure. In many places you can use pumped hydro to store energy. Also the compressed air technology of LightSail Energy seems quite promissing. I'm quite confident storage will not be a problem in the near future.
Edit : 2017 which is the year in which LightSail is planning to release its product.
Your Wind Turbine produced no electricity today, there was no wind, and it is not simply one turbine, it is a million? Yes? That amount of Oil is significant, given that most Wind Turbines sit idle waiting for a breeze.

What an incredible waste of natural resources, an idle wind turbine, 1400 tons of waste, muliplied by a million?
 
There you go
GAO: U.S. corporations pay average effective tax rate of 12.6%

Regarding fosil fuel levels: obviously there will be a slight increase first but after that there will be continuous decrease until 2012 levels are reached.
From your link, which is an article, not a report or study, hardly is an article a source for a serious discussion of taxes. How about state tax, local tax, property tax, workman's comp, health insurance (which the supreme court calls a tax), social securtiy tax, medicare tax, mandatory liability insurance.

Either way, an article is highly subjective, especially an article from CNN. Let us see the report.

The federal corporate tax rate stands at 35%, and jumps to 39.2% when state rates are taken into account.
You just had to click in the appropiate link to get the report.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/654957.pdf
 
And for the sake of argument we can forget the fact that no amount of Wind Mills, or Wind Turbines will ever replace the power of 1 nuclear power plant.
Really?
A nuclear plant produces between 4,000 MW and 502 MW

"U.S. wind power installed capacity in 2012 exceeded 51,630 MW and supplies 3% of the nation's electricity"
So , there you go the US already has the equivalent of 12 large nuclear plants .

Wind farm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
From Wikipedia? 51,630 mwh of Installed Capacity is not the same as Electricity delivered to the grid.

Ever here of "Available Capacity", or "Capacity Factor". both are significant when it comes to Wind Power. The available capacity is simply a technical term stating they do not produce electricity if the wind is not blowing. The capacity factor is what a wind turbine produces in real conditions.

A 32% capacity factor is generous, now at best your Wind Mills equal 4 nuclear power plants. 4 nuclear power plants produce power for an easy 400 days straight, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

A Wind Mill will produce power when the wind blows, tell me, 3 months from now, how much will the wind blow? Or better yet, how much will the Wind Blow at noon tomorrow? Or at noon a week from now?

A nuclear plant produces 4,000 MW? You mean mwh? Technically speaking, you are wrong, by a long shot. You should come back with some real numbers and link for that gross error.
No , that's was just supposed to be the installed capacity of a nuclear plant : 4,000 to 502 MW. I am not talking about the energy production.
Also, the capacity factor for a nuclear plant is not 100%, but about 90%,
No nuclear plant has an installed capacity of what you state, link if you like but it is obvious you do not kniw anything beyond your latestest google search.

On the contrary : link if you like . I stand by my figures, unless you provide a link that prooves the opposite.
 
You just had to click in the appropiate link to get the report.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/654957.pdf

Go fish!
Deficient GAO Report Hurts Tax Reform Efforts

Deficient GAO Report Hurts Tax Reform Efforts


GAO Compares Apples to Oranges to Find Low Corporate Effective Tax Rate



While this is still considerably lower than the statutory federal corporate tax rate of 35 percent, nearly all of the difference comes from the fact that U.S. corporations by law are given a tax credit against their U.S. tax liability for foreign corporate taxes paid. This is to prevent double taxation of foreign income. When the foreign tax credit is accounted for, and these foreign corporate taxes are counted, the overall effective corporate tax rate on the worldwide income of U.S. corporations is about32 to 33 percent
 
GAO Compares Apples to Oranges to Find Low Corporate Effective Tax Rate

We can’t check the numbers since the GAO report does not include all the data used in their main calculations


GAO's 12.6 percent figure comes from dividing U.S. federal corporate tax by worldwide income. It does not count foreign taxes at all or the foreign tax credit against U.S. tax liablity. In a 2008 report, the GAO did properly account for these things, by separating domestic and foreign income as well as domestic and foreign taxes. They found that federal corporate tax as a share of corporate domestic income was 25.2
 
Sounds like politicians are big fat liars

GAO Compares Apples to Oranges to Find Low Corporate Effective Tax Rate

Another big problem, as mentioned, is using a measure of income that has little to no relationship to the tax base to which the corporate tax applies. GAO uses income as reported on financial statements, which is different from taxable income reported on tax returns for many legitimate reasons that GAO describes. The big differences are timing differences in the treatment of cost recovery, losses, and other items. Researchers who use financial statement data generally get around these differences by averaging multiple years of data, but the GAO says they have insufficient data to do such an average. That means the 12.6 percent figure is completely unrepresentative, and should not have been published.
 

Forum List

Back
Top