Antarctic Ice Increases over 43%

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

Note the high end for wind is lower than the low end for nuclear.
 
thirty yeas and still running, Three Mile Island, I have been there, looked down into the reactor, with the head off, staring at the spent fuel.

From another thread I posted in and nobody replied to.

First off, the "Green" industry recognizes that wind power loses money, hence the subsidies and the hiding of costs, be a bit patient and dont lose your cool I am going to post the fact to prove this.

EPRI, if those intials do not ring a bell I know much more than you. Energy, Power, and Research Institute. This is a group that does much work as a quasi government agency as well as a quasi commercial electrical corporation agency. They get funding from both groups. They do all sorts of things from studies, to engineering evaluations, to quality control standards, they do so much I wont pretend to know everything and it serves no purpose to post all they do.

I am proud to say that in my elite field I am EPRI certified in my job, I analyize data acquired at commercial nuclear power plants (thats got to hurt if you thought my posts were posted out of ignorance). The dogs bite is more damageing than his bark.

So I will site EPRI at this time. I have big problems with EPRI and must admit as an expert in my field I know they are idiots. That said, politically I cannot avoid them and being idiots they were stupid to put the following online.

In the near-future, it is likely that wind energy's primary market will be niches that recognize values in addition to cost.

Here we have a study by EPRI literally stating the public cannot look at the cost of Green energy, the Green industry must market an advantage that has nothing to do with the crippling cost of going Green. They also state niches, niches can only refer to the fact that Green energy can only be placed in very specific places and than the cost cannot be a factor, its the value.

power generation industry. Barring large policy changes, such as a carbon tax, the principal value of wind energy as an electric generator, without storage facilities, is as a fuel saver. That is, wind energy generation must be used when it is available, thereby displacing energy (and variable operating expenses) that would have otherwise been provided.

So Obama has promised change, EPRI study states policy change. Obama is pushing a carbon tax, as does this government study. Again the study states value, not cost. The study tells us this is a fuel saver/displacer. That is not a replacer or in addition to. A carbon tax will make competitive energy to expensive allowing the "value" of wind attractive, not cost effective.



Technically in political speak that is "Capicity credit issue. So windfarms only displace a fraction of the cost of other cheaper forms of energy. The study also states specifically "some", it does not compete with all convential sources of energy. So at best according to the people the "Greenies" trust, green energy is at best displacing a fraction of costs. No mention of profit, its lose, lose, lose.

Henry Kelley at the Office of Technology Assessment suggests that virtually any wind installation merits a capacity credit

So Henry Kelley wont say this energy makes a profit or that it merits a capity credit, he only suggests it merits a credit.

U.S. studies have shown that a 5 percent penetration level has virtually n o
effect on system operations, while estimates of the impact of larger numbers appear to be largely speculative. Othe r
work by Grubb and Halberg [2,3] in Europe confirmed that no absolute physical limit exists to the fraction of win d
penetration on a large power system. Rather, with increasing penetration, the fuel and capacity savings begin t o
decrease, so that the system limits are economic rather than physical. Regardless, as Grubb points out, the penetration
of wind energy in the U.S. must be much larger before its value begins to degrade in the electric system.

That last quote hurts, the value of wind energy degrade the larger the wind farm is.

I will take a break, first facts presented are the politics and propaganda. I will wait and see what next, maybe 60 windmills in a farm weighing in at over 150 tons each times 60 is 9000 metric tons given a metric ton equals 1,102 U.S. tons times that there 60 is 66,120 tons converted into lbs is 132,240,000 lbs of fiberglass.

So who did the homework and the math? 60 windmills, a tiny farm. See why I think its the bankers who will get rich.

So lets address the governments own admissions in the EPRI study first than the amount of carbon a 132,240,000 lbs of fiberglass will produce.

I left much out that is real damaging to wind powers cost. I will come back to it, maybe.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ba/pba/pdfs/techchar.pdf
 

I like it, Kitten, I like it. Hope that they can make this thing work at the quoted cost.

See, nuclear isn't bad, it's a good thing and we need more work on it. There are more benefits than most people will admit and fewer dangers than they will have you think.

It also demonstrates a lot about what I say for environmentalism ... it's knee jerk. There are better solutions which are being ignored because the scientists that are pushing specific products and services are owned by some corporations who want people frightened into buying their products since they know they can't sell them through normal means. All the scientific groups you have shown for environmental issues are against nuclear, they are the ones trying to slow progress of such advances as the one I posted here. Could one wind turbine power 20,000 homes? One hydro generator of that same size? No, they can't. Thus the companies that produce those have to find another way to push their product, so they slip the most popular scientific organizations some money and those scientists will alter their findings by excluding data and even going as far as altering the numbers to make those products sound better and scare everyone into writing laws to force them to be used. Knee jerk, it's the way environmental issues are pushed through, they are not thought out or analyzed, which goes against any real scientific advancement.
 
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

Do not question thy prophet Gore.
 
Middletown, Goldsborough, Three Mile Island Nuclear Sta.: Unit 1, 875 Mwh , pressurized water reactor built by Babcox and Wilcox. Producing 875 Mega Watts every hour, 24 hours a day, 18 months straight (after which you refuel and perform maintenance.) for more than 30 years.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 was the unit that had the partial melt down of the reactor due to human error.

Exelon is current owner of Three Mile Island, General Public utilities sold TMI-1, funny, do corporations buy things that dont make a profit.

I know energy, Did I mention that I have one of the most specialized jobs on earth. I am a EPRI certified QDA IIA Non-destructive Eddy Current Analyst. Our company inspects one of the componets of the primary coolant system of a nuclear reactor, the heat exchanger.

Exelon profit up 4.7% - Chicago Tribune

Exelon profit up 4.7%
By James P Miller
January 22, 2009

Commonwealth Edison parent Exelon Corp., still riding fat profits at its electric-generation subsidiary, said fourth-quarter adjusted earnings rose 4.7 percent.

Mini-nukes, waste of money and time. If all we were worried about was powering homes we would not have an energy problem. You really have to try and figure out total electrical usage of lets say california.

Total electricity needed in california try something like 250,000 gwh

http://www.fypower.org/pdf/CA_WaterSupply_Electricity.pdf

The California Energy Commission (CEC) noted the significance of water related
electricity use in California in the 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR):
“California’s water infrastructure uses a tremendous amount of energy to
collect, move, and treat water; dispose of wastewater; and power the
large pumps that move water throughout the state. California consumers
also use energy to heat, cool, and pressurize the water they use in their
homes and businesses. Together these water related energy uses
annually account for roughly 20 percent of the state’s electricity
consumption, one-third of non-power plant natural gas consumption, and
about 88 million gallons of diesel fuel consumption.” (CEC, 2005c)
Total water related electrical consumption for the state of California amounts to
approximately 52,000 Gigawatthours (GWh).
 
Last edited:
This nation's energy policy is a dog an pony show.

The Go Green Machine is not a viable option short term or even relative long term.

Nuclear provides clean burning energy to power millions of households, but the enviros don't like nuclear power.

We have considerable oil reserves to dramatically reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil but the enviros don't want us to tap those resources.

Clean coal technology is a far more viable source of relatively clean energ than windmills and solar, yet the enviros howl they don't like that either.

It was remarkable how quickly Americans told these enviros to shut up when gas hit $4/gallon. Then the prices dropped and now many have grown quiet again...
 
This nation's energy policy is a dog an pony show.

The Go Green Machine is not a viable option short term or even relative long term.

Nuclear provides clean burning energy to power millions of households, but the enviros don't like nuclear power.

We have considerable oil reserves to dramatically reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil but the enviros don't want us to tap those resources.

Clean coal technology is a far more viable source of relatively clean energ than windmills and solar, yet the enviros howl they don't like that either.

It was remarkable how quickly Americans told these enviros to shut up when gas hit $4/gallon. Then the prices dropped and now many have grown quiet again...

Many years ago, they promised nuclear would be so cheap that it would not even be metered. And they also stated that there were so many safegaurds that an accident could not happen. Today nuclear is the most expensive, when all costs are taken into account, and Three Mile Island was a damned near thing. Why should we believe the representatives of this industry now?
 
This nation's energy policy is a dog an pony show.

The Go Green Machine is not a viable option short term or even relative long term.

Nuclear provides clean burning energy to power millions of households, but the enviros don't like nuclear power.

We have considerable oil reserves to dramatically reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil but the enviros don't want us to tap those resources.

Clean coal technology is a far more viable source of relatively clean energ than windmills and solar, yet the enviros howl they don't like that either.
It was remarkable how quickly Americans told these enviros to shut up when gas hit $4/gallon. Then the prices dropped and now many have grown quiet again...

Show me one operational Clean Coal Power Plant in the US. There are none. And there will be none unless it is mandated by law.

Right now, wind is far cheaper than coal. Coal does not pay for the environmental degradation it cause in the mining, and even from the emissions from the power plants.
 
This nation's energy policy is a dog an pony show.

The Go Green Machine is not a viable option short term or even relative long term.

Nuclear provides clean burning energy to power millions of households, but the enviros don't like nuclear power.

We have considerable oil reserves to dramatically reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil but the enviros don't want us to tap those resources.

Clean coal technology is a far more viable source of relatively clean energ than windmills and solar, yet the enviros howl they don't like that either.

It was remarkable how quickly Americans told these enviros to shut up when gas hit $4/gallon. Then the prices dropped and now many have grown quiet again...

Pure bullshit. In fact, quite the opposite. We have recieved our greatest impetus from the knowledge that we are still vulneble to this kind of gouging. That is why PGE has put charging stations in several places in Portland for electric vehicles. There are quite a number of citizens that have tired of waiting for the automobile manufacturers to build a viable vehicle, and have built their own.

Here is one example from Illinois;


Video: Jim Dawson's 80-mile range electric Saturn
Jim Dawson gives a great tour of his 1994 Saturn SL1 converted to run on electricity for an Illinois public access cable show (you can watch the video below the fold). Jim shows us the insides of his four-door electric car, pointing out all the changes he made and then takes us for a drive. There is a fuse so Jim does not have to worry about electrocution and everything else - like brakes, air bags, etc. - is basically the same.

Jim could not leave the back suspension alone though because he added a thousand pounds of batteries which gets him up to 80-mile range. Jim has put over 8,000 miles on his electric Saturn and likes paying only 2 cents a mile (30 MPG gas car with $3 a barrel a gas costs 20 cents a mile). Jim thinks more people will be interested in electric cars when gas hits $4 this Summer.
 
This nation's energy policy is a dog an pony show.

The Go Green Machine is not a viable option short term or even relative long term.

Nuclear provides clean burning energy to power millions of households, but the enviros don't like nuclear power.

We have considerable oil reserves to dramatically reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil but the enviros don't want us to tap those resources.

Clean coal technology is a far more viable source of relatively clean energ than windmills and solar, yet the enviros howl they don't like that either.

It was remarkable how quickly Americans told these enviros to shut up when gas hit $4/gallon. Then the prices dropped and now many have grown quiet again...

Many years ago, they promised nuclear would be so cheap that it would not even be metered. And they also stated that there were so many safegaurds that an accident could not happen. Today nuclear is the most expensive, when all costs are taken into account, and Three Mile Island was a damned near thing. Why should we believe the representatives of this industry now?

The Three Mile Island incident isn't anywhere "recent" in technological history, nor has there been any effects from that incident, also it's been running fine since then. That's like trying to compare todays standards with Chernoble, there is just no comparison. Coal causes cancer when burnt, it pollutes everything, and provides the most and cheapest energy ... except for nuclear. Nuclear is, simply, the ONLY viable and effective alternative. I have proven that, as for cost effectiveness, it won't cost any more to take money from coal plants and move it to the currently unused nuclear plants that already exist. All power systems have to be replaced and updated all the time, so long term costs are almost the same no matter how you look at it. You said a nuclear plant idea was great but then try to say that nuclear is bad. This is why fewer people are listening to the environuts.
 
This nation's energy policy is a dog an pony show.

The Go Green Machine is not a viable option short term or even relative long term.

Nuclear provides clean burning energy to power millions of households, but the enviros don't like nuclear power.

Except for the hazardous waste that lasts for thousands (tens of thousand) of years, yeah it's CO2 free.

We have considerable oil reserves to dramatically reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil but the enviros don't want us to tap those resources.

It's either too expense to extract, to the sulfur is too high. How much destruction to the environment is tolerable for us extracting crude?

Clean coal technology is a far more viable source of relatively clean energ than windmills and solar, yet the enviros howl they don't like that either.

Nope, no such thing as "clean coal", cleaner maybe, but not clean.


It was remarkable how quickly Americans told these enviros to shut up when gas hit $4/gallon. Then the prices dropped and now many have grown quiet again...

We have way too much nuclear waste sitting in short term storage areas, no place on this planet will be completely safe for long term storage, (IE earthquakes...) for the half life to decay enough not to pose a threat to human life.
 
Ya big ozone hole has been detected over antarctica which has been form because of greenhouse gases like cfcs,carbon dioxide and water vapour etc. and because of this whole more amount of heat strikes the surface of antarctica thus increasing the temperature over there..
138l1103.jpg
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top