Antarctic Ice Increases over 43%

[HUGGY]

Antarctic Ice has increased over 43% since 1980, while Arctic ice has only decreased approximately 7%.

Antarctic temperatures have fallen about 1 degree since the 1950's, with the coldest year being 2004.

And yet, the media is near-silent to these facts.

And the Global Warming Industrial Complex marches along - yearning for Cap N Trade legislation to make billions for a new elite Wall Street trading empire...

Brrrrrrrrrrr!

NSIDC BIST: Compare data: Sea Ice Index: Extent, Concentration, and Concentration Anomalies

Who do you work for? No one could be so interested in disproving global warming like you do without an agenda. Sure there is the occasional neo-con moron but you are way out there on this issue. What gives you away is that there is no up side to your arguement. The only people that have anything to gain from your arguments are poluters.

Busted.

No, you are looking at it from one side. The only people who profit from the global warming hoax are the few companies who own the rights to produce "green" products. The biggest problem with the hoax is that none of the products pushed by it, none of the services supported by the 'peer pressured' scientists are healthy for anyone or anything. At best these products and services are just slightly more expensive with no other flaws, most of them however are worse for out health and the environment while also over priced. Some cities are forcing this crap down our throats, resulting in no difference in the environment of the city while bleeding us dry. Recycling is one of the worst, it costs use millions per year with no production benefit (only producing 10% of the materials required for production), it's forced in many cities now who have had to create fines and change the rules frequently to "catch" people breaking these laws in order to keep paying for it. Also the recycling plants cause just as much pollution as others (in a few instances more). Seattle is the perfect example of what happens when "green" takes over.

You need to get outta the crib a little more. Being a "walker" your input is restricted to others opinions and not your own experiences. SeaDruNar collects paper and cardboard and does a fine job. Most of the cities waste disposal recycles plastics and other recyclables. One of my best friends is a supervisor at a waste management company with a city contract.

My point on the previous reply was that this "Sinatra" has, as none of us has, an up side to polution. Yet this one trick pony constantly flogs his little horse and for what purpose? Because of some percieved inefficiencies in recycling? Who stands to gain from the dragging out of polution controls? The internet does have paid representatives of certain interests. They come to places like this to lobby in the disguise of an average person.

 

[KittenKoder]

Who do you work for? No one could be so interested in disproving global warming like you do without an agenda. Sure there is the occasional neo-con moron but you are way out there on this issue. What gives you away is that there is no up side to your arguement. The only people that have anything to gain from your arguments are poluters.

Busted.

No, you are looking at it from one side. The only people who profit from the global warming hoax are the few companies who own the rights to produce "green" products. The biggest problem with the hoax is that none of the products pushed by it, none of the services supported by the 'peer pressured' scientists are healthy for anyone or anything. At best these products and services are just slightly more expensive with no other flaws, most of them however are worse for out health and the environment while also over priced. Some cities are forcing this crap down our throats, resulting in no difference in the environment of the city while bleeding us dry. Recycling is one of the worst, it costs use millions per year with no production benefit (only producing 10% of the materials required for production), it's forced in many cities now who have had to create fines and change the rules frequently to "catch" people breaking these laws in order to keep paying for it. Also the recycling plants cause just as much pollution as others (in a few instances more). Seattle is the perfect example of what happens when "green" takes over.

You need to get outta the crib a little more. Being a "walker" your input is restricted to others opinions and not your own experiences. SeaDruNar collects paper and cardboard and does a fine job. Most of the cities waste disposal recycles plastics and other recyclables. One of my best friends is a supervisor at a waste management company with a city contract.

My point on the previous reply was that this "Sinatra" has, as none of us has, an up side to polution. Yet this one trick pony constantly flogs his little horse and for what purpose? Because of some percieved inefficiencies in recycling? Who stands to gain from the dragging out of polution controls? The internet does have paid representatives of certain interests. They come to places like this to lobby in the disguise of an average person.

Now you are sounding like a conspiracy theorist with that last pert ...

There are many flaws to environmentalism, many which are not seen because the people who are pushing these policies have found an easy way to get the science to match the findings instead of using real scientific method and derive findings from the data. Sinatra is just another poster who happens to have seen this as well as many of us (more by the day across the globe thankfully). So ... you know someone in waste management (fancy term for garbage man) ... that doesn't mean you know much about what's going on, and I doubt they do either. Look at the chemicals used to purify the products, also do you know the average number of times paper can be recycled before it become useless? The chemicals released from melting and purifying the plastic with the result of less than 50% of it being usable after? Glass requires a lot of heat to 'renew', what do you suppose they use for fuel for that? Even with recycling a lot of the product is lost in the process, I think glass has the highest reusable amount after the process which comes out to about 60%. The products used in the process are virgin products, they have to in order for them to be useful, what of those? There is also a good reason why only 10% of the materials we use are from recycled products, because each time the materials are sent through the process they become less viable. There are many things you do not seem to know.

Then for the economic side, we waste millions of taxes per year in Seattle on a forced recycling plan, which the companies promised there would be a return. We have seen no return and keep sinking more money in it, but now the companies are like bullies pushing their services into the city government. Because of this we have no money left to cover our asses in any way. They have increased the fines for those "offenders" who do not recycle (all they need to do is find one plastic container in the trash) and are proposing another increase in the fine. Then they change the "rules" for it about every 3 months, thus those who are not wasting their time trying to keep up will get fines without even knowing why. You are just trying to "feel good" and everyone wants that, but this is a dangerous road to use for that. Civil rights are also being negatively impacted but no one seems to even care about that.

 

[HUGGY]

No, you are looking at it from one side. The only people who profit from the global warming hoax are the few companies who own the rights to produce "green" products. The biggest problem with the hoax is that none of the products pushed by it, none of the services supported by the 'peer pressured' scientists are healthy for anyone or anything. At best these products and services are just slightly more expensive with no other flaws, most of them however are worse for out health and the environment while also over priced. Some cities are forcing this crap down our throats, resulting in no difference in the environment of the city while bleeding us dry. Recycling is one of the worst, it costs use millions per year with no production benefit (only producing 10% of the materials required for production), it's forced in many cities now who have had to create fines and change the rules frequently to "catch" people breaking these laws in order to keep paying for it. Also the recycling plants cause just as much pollution as others (in a few instances more). Seattle is the perfect example of what happens when "green" takes over.

You need to get outta the crib a little more. Being a "walker" your input is restricted to others opinions and not your own experiences. SeaDruNar collects paper and cardboard and does a fine job. Most of the cities waste disposal recycles plastics and other recyclables. One of my best friends is a supervisor at a waste management company with a city contract.

My point on the previous reply was that this "Sinatra" has, as none of us has, an up side to polution. Yet this one trick pony constantly flogs his little horse and for what purpose? Because of some percieved inefficiencies in recycling? Who stands to gain from the dragging out of polution controls? The internet does have paid representatives of certain interests. They come to places like this to lobby in the disguise of an average person.

Now you are sounding like a conspiracy theorist with that last pert ...

There are many flaws to environmentalism, many which are not seen because the people who are pushing these policies have found an easy way to get the science to match the findings instead of using real scientific method and derive findings from the data. Sinatra is just another poster who happens to have seen this as well as many of us (more by the day across the globe thankfully). So ... you know someone in waste management (fancy term for garbage man) ... that doesn't mean you know much about what's going on, and I doubt they do either. Look at the chemicals used to purify the products, also do you know the average number of times paper can be recycled before it become useless? The chemicals released from melting and purifying the plastic with the result of less than 50% of it being usable after? Glass requires a lot of heat to 'renew', what do you suppose they use for fuel for that? Even with recycling a lot of the product is lost in the process, I think glass has the highest reusable amount after the process which comes out to about 60%. The products used in the process are virgin products, they have to in order for them to be useful, what of those? There is also a good reason why only 10% of the materials we use are from recycled products, because each time the materials are sent through the process they become less viable. There are many things you do not seem to know.

Then for the economic side, we waste millions of taxes per year in Seattle on a forced recycling plan, which the companies promised there would be a return. We have seen no return and keep sinking more money in it, but now the companies are like bullies pushing their services into the city government. Because of this we have no money left to cover our asses in any way. They have increased the fines for those "offenders" who do not recycle (all they need to do is find one plastic container in the trash) and are proposing another increase in the fine. Then they change the "rules" for it about every 3 months, thus those who are not wasting their time trying to keep up will get fines without even knowing why. You are just trying to "feel good" and everyone wants that, but this is a dangerous road to use for that. Civil rights are also being negatively impacted but no one seems to even care about that.

No conspiracy..fact. Lobbying takes on many forms. It is cost effective to "plant" input in the largest MBs. The major polutants spend billions lobbying congress why not get grass roots support on the cheap to augment thier other efforts?

The trouble with recycling paper is that the fibers get too short eventually. That is why shredding is not recommended.

It takes less energy to melt glass than melt silica sand...what's your point?

So what IS your point? Don't recycle? I don't see you advocating better recycling.

 

[KittenKoder]

You need to get outta the crib a little more. Being a "walker" your input is restricted to others opinions and not your own experiences. SeaDruNar collects paper and cardboard and does a fine job. Most of the cities waste disposal recycles plastics and other recyclables. One of my best friends is a supervisor at a waste management company with a city contract.

My point on the previous reply was that this "Sinatra" has, as none of us has, an up side to polution. Yet this one trick pony constantly flogs his little horse and for what purpose? Because of some percieved inefficiencies in recycling? Who stands to gain from the dragging out of polution controls? The internet does have paid representatives of certain interests. They come to places like this to lobby in the disguise of an average person.

Now you are sounding like a conspiracy theorist with that last pert ...

There are many flaws to environmentalism, many which are not seen because the people who are pushing these policies have found an easy way to get the science to match the findings instead of using real scientific method and derive findings from the data. Sinatra is just another poster who happens to have seen this as well as many of us (more by the day across the globe thankfully). So ... you know someone in waste management (fancy term for garbage man) ... that doesn't mean you know much about what's going on, and I doubt they do either. Look at the chemicals used to purify the products, also do you know the average number of times paper can be recycled before it become useless? The chemicals released from melting and purifying the plastic with the result of less than 50% of it being usable after? Glass requires a lot of heat to 'renew', what do you suppose they use for fuel for that? Even with recycling a lot of the product is lost in the process, I think glass has the highest reusable amount after the process which comes out to about 60%. The products used in the process are virgin products, they have to in order for them to be useful, what of those? There is also a good reason why only 10% of the materials we use are from recycled products, because each time the materials are sent through the process they become less viable. There are many things you do not seem to know.

Then for the economic side, we waste millions of taxes per year in Seattle on a forced recycling plan, which the companies promised there would be a return. We have seen no return and keep sinking more money in it, but now the companies are like bullies pushing their services into the city government. Because of this we have no money left to cover our asses in any way. They have increased the fines for those "offenders" who do not recycle (all they need to do is find one plastic container in the trash) and are proposing another increase in the fine. Then they change the "rules" for it about every 3 months, thus those who are not wasting their time trying to keep up will get fines without even knowing why. You are just trying to "feel good" and everyone wants that, but this is a dangerous road to use for that. Civil rights are also being negatively impacted but no one seems to even care about that.

No conspiracy..fact. Lobbying takes on many forms. It is cost effective to "plant" input in the largest MBs. The major polutants spend billions lobbying congress why not get grass roots support on the cheap to augment thier other efforts?

The trouble with recycling paper is that the fibers get too short eventually. That is why shredding is not recommended.

It takes less energy to melt glass than melt silica sand...what's your point?

So what IS your point? Don't recycle? I don't see you advocating better recycling.

No, I advocate to no longer make it forced. To no longer screw our city because of pandering to the "green" freaks. To start looking more into what's going on instead of just doing it to "feel good". Also to stop wasting money and time on the "peer pressured" scientists who are in the pockets of these companies and the "green" activists. There's more to the story than you seem to realize.

 

[HUGGY]

Now you are sounding like a conspiracy theorist with that last pert ...

There are many flaws to environmentalism, many which are not seen because the people who are pushing these policies have found an easy way to get the science to match the findings instead of using real scientific method and derive findings from the data. Sinatra is just another poster who happens to have seen this as well as many of us (more by the day across the globe thankfully). So ... you know someone in waste management (fancy term for garbage man) ... that doesn't mean you know much about what's going on, and I doubt they do either. Look at the chemicals used to purify the products, also do you know the average number of times paper can be recycled before it become useless? The chemicals released from melting and purifying the plastic with the result of less than 50% of it being usable after? Glass requires a lot of heat to 'renew', what do you suppose they use for fuel for that? Even with recycling a lot of the product is lost in the process, I think glass has the highest reusable amount after the process which comes out to about 60%. The products used in the process are virgin products, they have to in order for them to be useful, what of those? There is also a good reason why only 10% of the materials we use are from recycled products, because each time the materials are sent through the process they become less viable. There are many things you do not seem to know.

Then for the economic side, we waste millions of taxes per year in Seattle on a forced recycling plan, which the companies promised there would be a return. We have seen no return and keep sinking more money in it, but now the companies are like bullies pushing their services into the city government. Because of this we have no money left to cover our asses in any way. They have increased the fines for those "offenders" who do not recycle (all they need to do is find one plastic container in the trash) and are proposing another increase in the fine. Then they change the "rules" for it about every 3 months, thus those who are not wasting their time trying to keep up will get fines without even knowing why. You are just trying to "feel good" and everyone wants that, but this is a dangerous road to use for that. Civil rights are also being negatively impacted but no one seems to even care about that.

No conspiracy..fact. Lobbying takes on many forms. It is cost effective to "plant" input in the largest MBs. The major polutants spend billions lobbying congress why not get grass roots support on the cheap to augment thier other efforts?

The trouble with recycling paper is that the fibers get too short eventually. That is why shredding is not recommended.

It takes less energy to melt glass than melt silica sand...what's your point?

So what IS your point? Don't recycle? I don't see you advocating better recycling.

No, I advocate to no longer make it forced. To no longer screw our city because of pandering to the "green" freaks. To start looking more into what's going on instead of just doing it to "feel good". Also to stop wasting money and time on the "peer pressured" scientists who are in the pockets of these companies and the "green" activists. There's more to the story than you seem to realize.

I think there should be easy to access drop off barrels to dump anti freeze and used oil. It would be a cheap solution to two of the most toxic polutants. You can recycle at Schucks auto supply..sometimes.

 

[KittenKoder]

No conspiracy..fact. Lobbying takes on many forms. It is cost effective to "plant" input in the largest MBs. The major polutants spend billions lobbying congress why not get grass roots support on the cheap to augment thier other efforts?

The trouble with recycling paper is that the fibers get too short eventually. That is why shredding is not recommended.

It takes less energy to melt glass than melt silica sand...what's your point?

So what IS your point? Don't recycle? I don't see you advocating better recycling.

No, I advocate to no longer make it forced. To no longer screw our city because of pandering to the "green" freaks. To start looking more into what's going on instead of just doing it to "feel good". Also to stop wasting money and time on the "peer pressured" scientists who are in the pockets of these companies and the "green" activists. There's more to the story than you seem to realize.

I think there should be easy to access drop off barrels to dump anti freeze and used oil. It would be a cheap solution to two of the most toxic polutants. You can recycle at Schucks auto supply..sometimes.

No one is saying that you shouldn't be allowed to, just that wasting taxes on something that has no benefit and forcing people to do it is wrong. The only reason they pushed for the laws was because they couldn't produce enough material to make the profit they thought they could, so they conned the city government into handing them tax dollars when we needed them for more important things.

 

[RoadVirus]

Antarctic Ice has increased over 43% since 1980, while Arctic ice has only decreased approximately 7%.

Antarctic temperatures have fallen about 1 degree since the 1950's, with the coldest year being 2004.

And yet, the media is near-silent to these facts.

And the Global Warming Industrial Complex marches along - yearning for Cap N Trade legislation to make billions for a new elite Wall Street trading empire...

Brrrrrrrrrrr!

NSIDC BIST: Compare data: Sea Ice Index: Extent, Concentration, and Concentration Anomalies

Al Gore will have a stroke if he sees this!

 

[KittenKoder]

Antarctic Ice has increased over 43% since 1980, while Arctic ice has only decreased approximately 7%.

Antarctic temperatures have fallen about 1 degree since the 1950's, with the coldest year being 2004.

And yet, the media is near-silent to these facts.

And the Global Warming Industrial Complex marches along - yearning for Cap N Trade legislation to make billions for a new elite Wall Street trading empire...

Brrrrrrrrrrr!

NSIDC BIST: Compare data: Sea Ice Index: Extent, Concentration, and Concentration Anomalies

Al Gore will have a stroke if he sees this!

Naw, he'll just find a way to spin it and con more people out of tax dollars.

 

[Sinatra]

Al Gore may have a stroke regardless.

Dude is fat...

 

[krotchdog]

Used oil is one the lesst toxic substances we encounter. Used oil will not even mix with water, if you spill it on the ground it doesnt sink into the water table it stays at the surface, used oil floats on top of water.

Ethylene glycol dont scare me much niether

I should of quoted someone, oh well Maybe Huggy.

 

[theunbubba]

I want to know what part of global warming didn't start in the early pleistocene.
If "deniers" are cherry picking then splain sumthin tu me. How cum it's manmade if we wuznt ebn here back den.

I gotta know dis

 

[HUGGY]

Used oil is one the lesst toxic substances we encounter. Used oil will not even mix with water, if you spill it on the ground it doesnt sink into the water table it stays at the surface, used oil floats on top of water.

Ethylene glycol dont scare me much niether

I should of quoted someone, oh well Maybe Huggy.

Who you callin scared? I was just saying it would be nice to have a few more places to drop off the oil and antifreeze. Don't get all non global warming on me.

 

[Sinatra]

I want to know what part of global warming didn't start in the early pleistocene.
If "deniers" are cherry picking then splain sumthin tu me. How cum it's manmade if we wuznt ebn here back den.

I gotta know dis

I believe the Dinos drove SUV's...

 

[krotchdog]

All these threads are the same, endless mindless posting of data, twisted one way or another.

The only sensible approach is to look at the impact of the energy we choose to use. That is the only logical debate. Give them global warming, yes the earth is warming, so what are you going to do about.

If global warming is so important why are we the only ones in the world using ultra low sulpher diesel.
Why do we have the best enviromental laws and why can corporations circumvent them by moving business to other countries.

Why use an energy that is more expensive, the amount of money spent is a direct measure of the pollution created, if an energy costs more it pollutes more, its that simple.

Yes the earth is warming, you are right, but its you that are the problem if you think windmills and solar are the solution.

Your policies cannot stop the planet from warming or the pollution that causes it.

Nuclear power is the only answer. Total Nuclear power for all electrical needs, electric trains, electric cars for commuting.

So the greenee meanees win, give it to them, there is only one solution and its not solar or wind.

 

[Old Rocks]

Nuclear power is the most expensive of the alternatives. It also is the most dangerous if we are using first or second generation reactors. We already know how much the big power companies can be trusted to follow regulations and safe job procedures. We learned that lesson at Three Mile Island.

Nuclear is a good ballast, but there are more than enough chearper alternatives coming online to relieve us from total dependance on nuclear.

 

[krotchdog]

Old Rock, as you can see I did post my come back, hopefully this means we can move on and discuss something, I find this to be of better value. I know this is what you believe but there is no truth to this. Geothermal is the most expensive energy, followed by wind and solar, further all the pollution and energy it takes to create wind and solar is eliminated in the cost estimates. Cost estimates are also based on peak power in theory which niether wind or solar never attain. I have pointed that out in my energy threads in which not one greenee meanee posts in.

Real costs nuclear is the cheapest, you have no idea of the energy created in a nuclear power plant, tremendous and unbelievable.

Wind power, I drive by the wind farms in Cabazon California, they are tearing down 1st generation windmills as we post, off to the garbage heap. So much for renewable.

Even if you throw out the cost, green energy is so weak it will never close the gap between rising demand.

If nuke is so dangerous, why is Three Mile Island still producing power?

 

[Old Rocks]

If the U.S. nuclear industry is hitting a new high point, Saturday marked the anniversary of its low point. Thirty years ago, the meltdown of Three Mile Island's Unit 2 put its perils and shortcomings under the world's microscope.

No one was seriously injured in the accident, in which a small amount of radiation was released into the air above the Susquehanna River island 12 miles south of Harrisburg. Studies of area residents have not conclusively linked higher rates of cancer to radiation exposure.

Since then, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not granted one license for a nuclear power plant. The industry says it has made major safety advances, but huge obstacles remain.

It takes years to license and build a reactor. Construction costs billions of dollars. The nation has no long-term storage site for the 2,000 tons of radioactive waste being produced annually by the 104 reactors operating in 31 states.

While some environmental groups grudgingly accept nuclear power as part of the energy landscape, others continue to oppose it. Counting waste costs and government subsidies makes nuclear no more effective than a combination of efficiency measures, desert solar stations, wind power and geothermal energy, they say.
The Three Mile Island Disaster, Revisited : NPR

 

[Old Rocks]

Comparative costs data: California regulatory agencies (May 2008)
On May 13, 2008, the California Energy Commission and the California Public Utilities Commission released a comparison of the costs of of new generating capacity from various sources. The analysis for the comparison was prepared by Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc., a consulting firm that prepares studies for utilities, governmental regulators, law firms, and non-profit agencies.[1] These estimates include firming resource costs.

Busbar cost in cents per kilowatt-hour in 2008 dollars:

Coal:

Coal Supercritical: 10.554
Coal Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC): 11.481
Coal IGCC with Carbon Capture & Storage (IGCC with CCS): 17.317
Alternatives:

Biogas: 8.552
Wind: 8.910
Gas Combined Cycle: 9.382
Geothermal: 10.182
Hydroelectric: 10.527
Concentrating solar thermal (CSP): 12.653
Nuclear: 15.316
Biomass: 16.485
Busbar means the price of the power leaving the plant. All capital, fuel, and operating costs are taken into account in busbar costs.

The spreadsheet containing these costs can be found at CPUC GHG Modeling.

Select GHG Calculator v2b. This is a 5.7 MB compressed file in ZIP format. Decompressing the ZIP file produces an Excel spreadsheet.

On this spreadsheet, look for the tab on the bottom of the page that says "Gen Cost"

This opens another spreadsheet. Now look for "All-in Levelized Busbar Cost California." The results are in $/MWh and are readily converted to cents per kwh. For example, $85.52 per MWh is the same as 8.552 cents per kwh
Comparative electrical generation costs - SourceWatch

 

[krotchdog]

Nuclear power is the most expensive of the alternatives. It also is the most dangerous if we are using first or second generation reactors. We already know how much the big power companies can be trusted to follow regulations and safe job procedures. We learned that lesson at Three Mile Island.

Nuclear is a good ballast, but there are more than enough chearper alternatives coming online to relieve us from total dependance on nuclear.[/QUOTE

As you can see I put my old response back, as long as it seems we may be on decent terms. I think its more interesting to have a discussion.

I posted in another thread the government study of EPRI, conducted during the Clinton/Gore presidency, the study explains that production costs of windmills and solar will have to be discounted in order for green energy to be competitive, and further the study says that tradional energy will have to be taxed in order for green energy to be attractive. Without taxes and hiding costs green energy is more expensive.

Three Mile Island is running today producing power from the reactor, if its so dangerous and expensive how is that possible.

 

[Old Rocks]

Comparative costs data: Lazard analysis (June 2008)
The investment banking company Lazard Ltd. released the following comparison among generation technologies. The levelized costs include production tax credits, investment tax credits, and accelerated asset depreciation as applicable. Assumptions include: busbar costs (cents per kilowatt-hour) in 2008 dollars, 60% debt at 7% interest rate, 40% equity at 12% cost, 20-year economic life, 40% tax rate, 5-20 year tax life, coal at $2.50 per million Btu, and natural gas at $8.00 per million Bt.[2]

Coal/Nuclear/Gas:

Gas peaking: 22.1 - 33.4
IGCC: 10.4 - 13.4
Nuclear: 9.8 - 12.6
Advanced supercritical coal: 7.4 - 13.5 (high end includes 90% carbon capture and storage)
Gas combined cycle: 7.3 - 10.0
Alternatives:

Solar PV (crystalline): 10.9 - 15.4
Fuel cell: 11.5 - 12.5
Solar PV (thin film): 9.6 - 12.4
Solar thermal: 9.0 - 14.5 (low end is solar tower; high end is solar trough)
Biomass direct: 5.0 - 9.4
Landfill gas: 5.0 - 8.1
Wind: 4.4 - 9.1
Geothermal: 4.2 - 6.9
Biomass cofiring: 0.3 - 3.7
Energy efficiency: 0.0 - 5.0
Comment: the California Public Utilities Commission used a low range of costs for natural gas: $5.50 - $6.50 per MMBtu (million British thermal units, a measure of heat) - while today's price is $8.00 per MMBtu, and was over $12/MMBtu early this summer. Since the cost of gas is about 70% of the cost of producing natural gas-fired electricity, the price of gas is CRITICAL. Every dollar the cost of gas goes up -- from say $8.00/MMBtu to $9.00/MMBtu, the cost of natural gas-fired electricity increases about a penny. So when natural gas increases from $8.00/MMBtu to $12.00/MMBtu, that means the cost of gas-fired electricity increases a stunning 4 cents/kWh. The Lazard study below uses a much more realistic cost estimate of $8.00/MMBtu.

Comparative electrical generation costs - SourceWatch