False hope of renewables...settled science

[Old Rocks]

May be possible, but we don't seem to able to figure out how to do it.

However, using photovoltaic is certainly taking advantage of that large fusion reactor in the sky.

 

[Politico]

I'd pump a few hundred billion into fusion. We could end up with a real replacement.

Except fusion is not possible. But you go on with your imaginary money and believe that.

It's "not possible?" It occurs every day in the Sun. So how can that be true?

Because that's not what we're talking about.

 

[bripat9643]

I'd pump a few hundred billion into fusion. We could end up with a real replacement.

Except fusion is not possible. But you go on with your imaginary money and believe that.

It's "not possible?" It occurs every day in the Sun. So how can that be true?

Because that's not what we're talking about.

My mistake. I thought you were talking about nuclear fusion.

 

[westwall]

LOL. All this flap-yap, and the renewables appear to have already won the race. The cost of natural gas and coal fired installations continue to rise, the cost of wind and solar continues to fall. To the point that the renwables now produce electricity cheaper than do either coal or gas. It is all laid out in the thread, "Alternatives on the rise".

They only are rising because government, at the behest of the green companies, have levied enormous fees on coal and natural gas so that renewables can be more competitive...and they STILL are losing out.

 

[Politico]

I'd pump a few hundred billion into fusion. We could end up with a real replacement.

Except fusion is not possible. But you go on with your imaginary money and believe that.

It's "not possible?" It occurs every day in the Sun. So how can that be true?

Because that's not what we're talking about.

My mistake. I thought you were talking about nuclear fusion.

No mistake. You know we're not talking about the freaking sun.

 

[bripat9643]

I'd pump a few hundred billion into fusion. We could end up with a real replacement.

Except fusion is not possible. But you go on with your imaginary money and believe that.

It's "not possible?" It occurs every day in the Sun. So how can that be true?

Because that's not what we're talking about.

My mistake. I thought you were talking about nuclear fusion.

No mistake. You know we're not talking about the freaking sun.

Since the process obviously occurs naturally, what gives you the gonads to claim it can't be reproduced artificially? Aren't you one of the morons who claims that solar can be made competitive with fossil fuels if only enough money is invested in it?

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. All this flap-yap, and the renewables appear to have already won the race. The cost of natural gas and coal fired installations continue to rise, the cost of wind and solar continues to fall. To the point that the renwables now produce electricity cheaper than do either coal or gas. It is all laid out in the thread, "Alternatives on the rise".

They only are rising because government, at the behest of the green companies, have levied enormous fees on coal and natural gas so that renewables can be more competitive...and they STILL are losing out.

LOL. Ol' Walleyes is still trying to pretend that tomorrow is not happening.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0

In Texas, Austin Energy signed a deal this spring for 20 years of output from a solar farm at less than 5 cents a kilowatt-hour. In September, the Grand River Dam Authority in Oklahoma announced its approval of a new agreement to buy power from a new wind farm expected to be completed next year. Grand River estimated the deal would save its customers roughly $50 million from the project.

And, also in Oklahoma, American Electric Power ended up tripling the amount of wind power it had originally sought after seeing how low the bids came in last year.

“Wind was on sale — it was a Blue Light Special,” said Jay Godfrey, managing director of renewable energy for the company. He noted that Oklahoma, unlike many states, did not require utilities to buy power from renewable sources.

“We were doing it because it made sense for our ratepayers,” he said.

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

 

[Old Rocks]

Oncor proposes giant leap for grid batteries Dallas Morning News

Oncor, which runs Texas’ largest power line network, is willing to bet battery technology is ready for wide-scale deployment across the grid.

In a move that stands to radically shift the dynamics of the industry, Oncor is set to announce Monday that it is prepared to invest more than $2 billion to store electricity in thousands of batteries across North and West Texas beginning in 2018.

Utility-scale batteries have been a holy grail within the energy sector for years. With enough storage space, surplus electricity can be generated at night, when plants usually sit idle, to be used the next day, when demand is highest. Power outages would become less frequent. Wind and solar power, susceptible to weather conditions, could be built on a larger scale. The only problem has been that the price of batteries has been too high to make economic sense. But if they’re purchased on a large enough scale, that won’t be the case for long, said Oncor CEO Bob Shapard.

“Everyone assumed the price point was five to six years out. We’re getting indications from everyone we’ve talked to they can get us to that price by 2018,” he said in an interview Wednesday.

The Dallas-based transmission company is proposing the installation of 5,000 megawatts of batteries not just in its service area but across Texas’ entire grid. That is the equivalent of four nuclear power plants on a grid with a capacity of about 81,000 megawatts.

And that makes wind and solar 24/7. That will start the phasing out of coal fired generators by 2020, and gas fired by 2030. Will also result in the canceling of plans for nuclear reactors on the basis of cost.

 

[Old Rocks]

Except fusion is not possible. But you go on with your imaginary money and believe that.

It's "not possible?" It occurs every day in the Sun. So how can that be true?

Because that's not what we're talking about.

My mistake. I thought you were talking about nuclear fusion.

No mistake. You know we're not talking about the freaking sun.

Since the process obviously occurs naturally, what gives you the gonads to claim it can't be reproduced artificially? Aren't you one of the morons who claims that solar can be made competitive with fossil fuels if only enough money is invested in it?

Any process that occurs naturally can be done with the proper technology and knowledge. Seems thus far, we are a bit deficient in both. And then there is the cost per kilowatt.

 

[westwall]

LOL. All this flap-yap, and the renewables appear to have already won the race. The cost of natural gas and coal fired installations continue to rise, the cost of wind and solar continues to fall. To the point that the renwables now produce electricity cheaper than do either coal or gas. It is all laid out in the thread, "Alternatives on the rise".

They only are rising because government, at the behest of the green companies, have levied enormous fees on coal and natural gas so that renewables can be more competitive...and they STILL are losing out.

LOL. Ol' Walleyes is still trying to pretend that tomorrow is not happening.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0

In Texas, Austin Energy signed a deal this spring for 20 years of output from a solar farm at less than 5 cents a kilowatt-hour. In September, the Grand River Dam Authority in Oklahoma announced its approval of a new agreement to buy power from a new wind farm expected to be completed next year. Grand River estimated the deal would save its customers roughly $50 million from the project.

And, also in Oklahoma, American Electric Power ended up tripling the amount of wind power it had originally sought after seeing how low the bids came in last year.

“Wind was on sale — it was a Blue Light Special,” said Jay Godfrey, managing director of renewable energy for the company. He noted that Oklahoma, unlike many states, did not require utilities to buy power from renewable sources.

“We were doing it because it made sense for our ratepayers,” he said.

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

And look at the section that that lying bastard olfraud left out....


"Those prices were made possible by generous subsidies that could soon diminish or expire, but recent analyses show that even without those subsidies, alternative energies can often compete with traditional sources."


And then there are these fees that are being added to the cost of coal. Some are warranted, and some are not.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-mssp/coal.pdf
Richmond Sunlight 2014 Landlord and tenant law energy submetering local government fees. HB614
Resource fee for coal miners to rise
CleanEnergy Footprints Archive Countdown to coal ash rules from EPA

Above are a very few of the regs and fees. The facts are those "generous subsidies" that your story spoke of are generated by taking the money from coal, and oil, and natural gas, and giving it to the "green" companies.

Not exactly a level playing field...........is it....

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scalesolar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

That was right there in the post. Wind at an unsubsidized price of 3.7 cents a kilowatt, solar at 7.2 cents a kilowatt, and prices still dropping for both. In the meantime, lowest for dirty coal is 6.6 cents a kilowatt, and 6.1 cents a kilowatt for gas.

The market is deciding the future right now, and luddites like Walleyes cannot do a thing about it.

 

[westwall]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scalesolar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

That was right there in the post. Wind at an unsubsidized price of 3.7 cents a kilowatt, solar at 7.2 cents a kilowatt, and prices still dropping for both. In the meantime, lowest for dirty coal is 6.6 cents a kilowatt, and 6.1 cents a kilowatt for gas.

The market is deciding the future right now, and luddites like Walleyes cannot do a thing about it.

You idiot! It's only because of this fact...Those prices were made possible by generous subsidies" that you keep leaving out of the post, you dishonest twerp, reveal ALL of the facts why don't you? Oh yeah, because the facts.....expose you for the lying POS that you are!
E

 

[Pop23]

I'd pump a few hundred billion into fusion. We could end up with a real replacement.

Modern nuclear technology is a renewable source of nearly unlimited power and it's safe as well

Pity we can't get past the Jane Fonda hype and do something real.

 

[Old Rocks]

Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukashima.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scalesolar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

That was right there in the post. Wind at an unsubsidized price of 3.7 cents a kilowatt, solar at 7.2 cents a kilowatt, and prices still dropping for both. In the meantime, lowest for dirty coal is 6.6 cents a kilowatt, and 6.1 cents a kilowatt for gas.

The market is deciding the future right now, and luddites like Walleyes cannot do a thing about it.

You idiot! It's only because of this fact...Those prices were made possible by generous subsidies" that you keep leaving out of the post, you dishonest twerp, reveal ALL of the facts why don't you? Oh yeah, because the facts.....expose you for the lying POS that you are!
E

Oh my, Walleyes has his tit in a wringer. Yes, the prices that were made possible by the subsidies, at present, were 1.4 cents a kilowatt for wind. 5.1 cents a kilowatt for solar. However, that one Texas utility signed a contract for 20 years to deliver electricity for less than 5 cents a kilowatt. Knowing full well the subsidies may be dropped. They are betting on the economies of scale making the solar much less than a nickel a watt in the near future. Unsubsidized wind can be had today for 3.7 cents a watt.

Poor ol' Walleyes is just squealing like a stuck pig for the lack of oppertunity to expose the children of this nation to mercury, arsenic, lead, and uranium. All products out of the smokestacks of coal fired plants. Less of each for plants built since 1975, but they produce electricity that costs more than 6.6 cents a watt. That figure is for the dirty coal plants.

 

[Old Rocks]

I'd pump a few hundred billion into fusion. We could end up with a real replacement.

Modern nuclear technology is a renewable source of nearly unlimited power and it's safe as well

Pity we can't get past the Jane Fonda hype and do something real.

Pity that nuclear power did not deliver on the promises they made in the '50's. Absolutely fail safe, and power so cheap we would not have to meter it. Instead, we have seen two serious disasters, and one near disaster, and nuclear is very high priced electricity.

 

[westwall]

Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukashima.

More people have died skate boarding. In a year.

 

[westwall]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scalesolar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

That was right there in the post. Wind at an unsubsidized price of 3.7 cents a kilowatt, solar at 7.2 cents a kilowatt, and prices still dropping for both. In the meantime, lowest for dirty coal is 6.6 cents a kilowatt, and 6.1 cents a kilowatt for gas.

The market is deciding the future right now, and luddites like Walleyes cannot do a thing about it.

You idiot! It's only because of this fact...Those prices were made possible by generous subsidies" that you keep leaving out of the post, you dishonest twerp, reveal ALL of the facts why don't you? Oh yeah, because the facts.....expose you for the lying POS that you are!
E

Oh my, Walleyes has his tit in a wringer. Yes, the prices that were made possible by the subsidies, at present, were 1.4 cents a kilowatt for wind. 5.1 cents a kilowatt for solar. However, that one Texas utility signed a contract for 20 years to deliver electricity for less than 5 cents a kilowatt. Knowing full well the subsidies may be dropped. They are betting on the economies of scale making the solar much less than a nickel a watt in the near future. Unsubsidized wind can be had today for 3.7 cents a watt.

Poor ol' Walleyes is just squealing like a stuck pig for the lack of oppertunity to expose the children of this nation to mercury, arsenic, lead, and uranium. All products out of the smokestacks of coal fired plants. Less of each for plants built since 1975, but they produce electricity that costs more than 6.6 cents a watt. That figure is for the dirty coal plants.

The only person who is squealing is you dickhead. You're lying through your teeth trying to say that renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels which is an outright lie. And you know it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukashima.

More people have died skate boarding. In a year.

You are a fucking liar. And know full well the extent of the lie you have told.

Chernobyl Death Toll 985 000 Mostly from Cancer Global Research

This past April 26th marked the 24th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear plant accident. It came as the nuclear industry and pro-nuclear government officials in the United States and other nations were trying to “revive” nuclear power. And it followed the publication of a book, the most comprehensive study ever made, on the impacts of the Chernobyl disaster.

Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment was published by the New York Academy of Sciences.

It is authored by three noted scientists:

Russian biologist Dr. Alexey Yablokov, former environmental advisor to the Russian president;

Dr. Alexey Nesterenko, a biologist and ecologist in Belarus; and

Dr.Vassili Nesterenko, a physicist and at the time of the accident director of the Institute of Nuclear Energy of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus.

Its editor is Dr. Janette Sherman, a physician and toxicologist long involved in studying the health impacts of radioactivity.

The book is solidly based — on health data, radiological surveys and scientific reports — some 5,000 in all.

It concludes that based on records now available, some 985,000 people died, mainly of cancer, as a result of the Chernobyl accident. That is between when the accident occurred in 1986 and 2004. More deaths, it projects, will follow.

The book explodes the claim of the International Atomic Energy Agency– still on its website that the expected death toll from the Chernobyl accident will be 4,000. The IAEA, the new book shows, is under-estimating, to the extreme, the casualties of Chernobyl.

Minimum death toll of 4000, max of nearly a million. You are a liar totally without any kind of ethics.

 

[Old Rocks]

Fukushima s appalling death toll The Japan Times

Fukushima’s appalling death toll

ARTICLE HISTORY

• PRINT

• SHARE

As the third anniversary of the Great East Japan Earthquake approaches, new studies of the ongoing effects of the triple disaster of earthquake, tsunami and nuclear meltdown show that the disaster is far from over.

The latest report from Fukushima revealed that more people have died from stress-related illnesses and other maladies after the disaster than from injuries directly linked to the disaster. The report compiled by prefectural authorities and local police found that the deaths of 1,656 people in Fukushima Prefecture fall into the former category. That figure surpasses the 1,607 people who died from disaster-related injuries. Another 434 people have died since 3/11 in Iwate Prefecture and 879 in Miyagi Prefecture. These indirect causes are just as deadly as the direct causes, and are likely to last much longer unless the central government takes action.

In another report, the first of its kind since the disaster, the lifetime risk of cancer for young children was found to have increased because of exposure to radiation. While the increase was relatively small — a mere 1.06 percent in areas close to the crippled nuclear plant — the results, which were published in the U.S. science journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, were the first projections of the harmful effects from exposure to radiation released by the stricken Fukushima nuclear plant.

From Japan.