How many nuke plants are you willing to build to power the electric cars?

[Baruch Menachem]

The electric car runs on batteries recharged off the regular power grid.

In order to charge all those cars overnight, it might require quite a lot of beefing up of the power grid.


Then there is the source of electric. It won't be hydro. Hydro is being taken down, not built up these days.

The real practical choices are coal (very very dirty, worse than petroleum) or natural gas (we got plenty, but its offshore. ) or nukes.


I personally think Thorium nukes are a good plan. They don't require the infrastructure of Uranium nukes. And we can practically mass produce them to fit a communities' needs, rather than having massive centralized plants.

Anyway, what are your choices for power. Wind and Solar are not yet ready for prime time, and solar won't work at night when the cars need charging.

Or maybe petroleum isn't such a bad deal after all

 

[Old Rocks]

Petroleum is not a good deal at all.

The thorium nukes, when developed, look like a good deal. Especially as they are truly fail safe. Wind is already big time, but it will only handle a percentage of the needed power. The new technology being developed in large scale battery storage will help. The answer is simply pretty much all of the above. Nuclear, failsafe only, wind, solar, geothermal, wave, and slow current. Hydro is pretty much already developed. Coal is simply too dirty, both in standard pollution and GHGs. Natural gas is better, but still produces GHGs.

Conservation of the energy we have will play a big part. From lighting to the appliances we use, we can be more efficient, get more bang per kwh.

 

[Douger]

Night ? My batteries are charged. Need to charge your car ? c'mon by.

 

[skookerasbil]

Green energy is a total joke.........destroys jobs.......destroys economic growth. Liberals talk about green energy but NEVER want to make a comparison to conventional energy. Why? Because when they do........they get blown to shit!!!

From todays CBSNews "Money Watch" ( not the Heratige Foundation!!!)


March 13, 2012
The great green energy hoax
By Steve Tobak .

(MoneyWatch)

In the business world, when you combine bad management, faulty science and fanatical ideology, it's a recipe for disaster. Strangely enough, when the federal government does it, the result is the same.


I'm referring to the national green energy policy that is actually costing us jobs, hurting our economy and increasing our dependence on foreign oil -- all at a time when we can least afford it. It may even be having an indirect effect on rising gas prices.

Sadly, you didn't have to be Nostradamus to know that force-feeding an initiative this big against free market forces would end badly. In fact, the renewable energy bubble was evident years ago. Back in 2008, CNET ran an article entitled "The alternative energy bubble," where today's situation was indeed foretold:


"What do you get when you mix Al Gore, global warming, whacky environmentalists, skyrocketing oil prices, lots of venture funding, and irrational exuberance? An alternative-energy bubble. "What, you don't believe there's an alternative-energy bubble? Then you're just not paying attention. All the signs are there. As bubbles go, I think this one's going to be big. How big? You got me. But I think that global warming, alternative energy -- and solar energy in particular -- like Al Gore, are all overblown."

Yes, I wrote that, and we all know that I'm no medieval seer with an omniscient ability to predict the future. I just pay attention and understand fundamental business concepts like supply and demand and risk management. I also have built-in radar for anything that sounds remotely like fanatical ideology.

10 signs that going green is just a fad
Greentech pastures not so green


Now, that article and others like it were written before our economy melted down. So clearly, the administration saw the renewable energy push as a sort of stimulus. In hindsight, however, it's now evident that not only didn't it work, it's actually had the opposite effect. Here are some examples of how our green energy policy has negatively impacted the jobs picture and our economy.


The solar meltdown

Over the past few years we've watched the entire solar industry implode in agonizing slow motion. One solar company after another -- Evergreen (ESLR), Solyndra, Abound, and others -- bit the dust amid weak demand, a glut of low-cost panels from China and swirling controversy over ill-conceived government loans that have cost taxpayers billions.

Even First Solar (FSLR), America's biggest solar panel maker and the recipient of $3 billion in government loan guarantees, finds itself in big trouble. The company fired its CEO late last year and recently announced a disastrous quarter as news of its panels failing in dessert climates sent an already depressed share price plummeting to multi-year lows.

The electric car fad

Look, I'm just going to come right out and say it: the whole electric car thing is nothing but a crazy fad that makes no logical sense. The Chevy Volt is an expensive mess that nobody's buying and can barely get you to work and back on a charge. And now, the federal government, which already subsidized the GM (GM) car's development, wants to hand you another $10,000 of taxpayer money just to get you to buy one.

And don't even get me started on government loan guarantees made to electric automakers Tesla and Fisker so the latter can make a $100,000 electric sports car in Finland. And just last week, Consumer Reports paid $107,850 for a brand new Fisker Karma that broke down during the check-in process and could not be restarted for an actual road test, "the first time in memory that's happened," according to the publication. You can't make this stuff up.

The real jobs boom: Oil and gas

This is where the story gets out-of-control ridiculous. There's an energy jobs boom going on in America, but it's in oil and gas, not green energy. According to a Bureau of Labor Statistics report, oil and gas production now accounts for 440,000 jobs, an increase of 80 percent since 2003.

It's even plausible to suggest that, with new technology and production methods, if you combine coal, natural gas, off-shore oil drilling and shale oil deposits, we could not only put our unemployed back to work, we can also end our dependence on foreign oil. And that, in turn, would stabilize gas prices at the pump.

And that can all be funded privately, with no Energy Department loan guarantees. If only the federal government would just can its political agenda, quit kowtowing to lobbyists and environmentalists, put the American people first and get the heck out of the way.

Don't get me wrong; I love green energy. And if the government wants to get involved, I have no problem with it funding some core research, building infrastructure and creating some shovel-ready jobs. But when it comes to funding individual companies, let private industry do its job. And when it comes to energy, our economy and our jobs, let the market decide.

Back in 2008, I wrote, "You don't want to end up like Icarus, who got a little too exuberant and flew too close to the sun. Wings melt, bubbles burst -- same result." Been there, done that; let's try something else.


The great green energy hoax - CBS News




winning..................


Libeeral energy idea's are nothing but a fantasy. Always have been..........always will be.

 

[Old Rocks]

A one year growth of 89%. But solar is dying? Third quarter growth for last year of almost 40%. That is the sign of a weak industry?

Yes, there is an ongoing shakeout within the industry. One that will continue because of the rapidly changing technology. But the product is being snapped up and used at an increasing rate worldwide.

Barring someone actually developing Cold Fusion, solar will continue to grow very rapidly for at least a generation.

U.S. Solar Installations Continuing to Increase | Solar-New-Jersey.org

Early indications are that 2011 will be the strongest year ever for solar installations, although not quite as strong as most people believed. For the third quarter of 2011, solar installations in the U.S. were approximately 449.2 megawatts which was an increase of almost 40% over the prior quarter, 324.3 megawatts, according to Solar Energy Industries Association and research firm GTM Research. That means that the total for the first three quarters in 2011 exceeded the entire total of installed solar in 2010.

The reason for this has been that the due to a global over-supply of solar panels, which has hurt solar manufacturers but been a boon to installers and the consumer. In addition, the installed has also decreased as a result of a decline non-module costs such as installation labor, marketing, overhead, and inverters. In fact, these costs have declined by roughly 18 percent from 2009 to 2010.

The strength of the increase in solar installations was in the utility-scale market with 23 projects accounting for more than 200 MW of the quarter’s total — a 325 percent increase from the second quarter. In addition, solar installations in the residential market increased 21%, although smaller commercial scale installations declined by almost 25% due to changes in state incentives in top U.S. solar markets including California, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

With respect to the market and the market, sustained boom periods have over-saturated those markets with enough solar capacity such that state utilities have met their mandates for renewable energy production, ultimately lowering the value of state incentives.

As a result of weakness in the commercial solar market, SEIA revised its 2011 installation forecast downward to 1.7 GW from 1.8 GW which would still represent year over year growth of approximately 89%.

As for 2012, the U.S. solar market is expected to continue to grow but will face several serious challenges from dwindling state incentives, expiration of a key federal subsidy that allows developers to received cash for up to 30% of the cost of a new solar installation, and continued influx of cheaper Chinese-made solar panels.

 

[night]

I think people should just try to do more of wind energy. The pressure Obama is putting on renewable energy technology research will help alot.

 

[night]

Many of the countries that do have green energy are among the richest in the world. Denmark, Norway, Iceland. Why should we not do it just to get cheap energy?

Green energy is a total joke.........destroys jobs.......destroys economic growth. Liberals talk about green energy but NEVER want to make a comparison to conventional energy. Why? Because when they do........they get blown to shit!!!

From todays CBSNews "Money Watch" ( not the Heratige Foundation!!!)


March 13, 2012
The great green energy hoax
By Steve Tobak .

(MoneyWatch)

In the business world, when you combine bad management, faulty science and fanatical ideology, it's a recipe for disaster. Strangely enough, when the federal government does it, the result is the same.


I'm referring to the national green energy policy that is actually costing us jobs, hurting our economy and increasing our dependence on foreign oil -- all at a time when we can least afford it. It may even be having an indirect effect on rising gas prices.

Sadly, you didn't have to be Nostradamus to know that force-feeding an initiative this big against free market forces would end badly. In fact, the renewable energy bubble was evident years ago. Back in 2008, CNET ran an article entitled "The alternative energy bubble," where today's situation was indeed foretold:


"What do you get when you mix Al Gore, global warming, whacky environmentalists, skyrocketing oil prices, lots of venture funding, and irrational exuberance? An alternative-energy bubble. "What, you don't believe there's an alternative-energy bubble? Then you're just not paying attention. All the signs are there. As bubbles go, I think this one's going to be big. How big? You got me. But I think that global warming, alternative energy -- and solar energy in particular -- like Al Gore, are all overblown."

Yes, I wrote that, and we all know that I'm no medieval seer with an omniscient ability to predict the future. I just pay attention and understand fundamental business concepts like supply and demand and risk management. I also have built-in radar for anything that sounds remotely like fanatical ideology.

10 signs that going green is just a fad
Greentech pastures not so green


Now, that article and others like it were written before our economy melted down. So clearly, the administration saw the renewable energy push as a sort of stimulus. In hindsight, however, it's now evident that not only didn't it work, it's actually had the opposite effect. Here are some examples of how our green energy policy has negatively impacted the jobs picture and our economy.


The solar meltdown

Over the past few years we've watched the entire solar industry implode in agonizing slow motion. One solar company after another -- Evergreen (ESLR), Solyndra, Abound, and others -- bit the dust amid weak demand, a glut of low-cost panels from China and swirling controversy over ill-conceived government loans that have cost taxpayers billions.

Even First Solar (FSLR), America's biggest solar panel maker and the recipient of $3 billion in government loan guarantees, finds itself in big trouble. The company fired its CEO late last year and recently announced a disastrous quarter as news of its panels failing in dessert climates sent an already depressed share price plummeting to multi-year lows.

The electric car fad

Look, I'm just going to come right out and say it: the whole electric car thing is nothing but a crazy fad that makes no logical sense. The Chevy Volt is an expensive mess that nobody's buying and can barely get you to work and back on a charge. And now, the federal government, which already subsidized the GM (GM) car's development, wants to hand you another $10,000 of taxpayer money just to get you to buy one.

And don't even get me started on government loan guarantees made to electric automakers Tesla and Fisker so the latter can make a $100,000 electric sports car in Finland. And just last week, Consumer Reports paid $107,850 for a brand new Fisker Karma that broke down during the check-in process and could not be restarted for an actual road test, "the first time in memory that's happened," according to the publication. You can't make this stuff up.

The real jobs boom: Oil and gas

This is where the story gets out-of-control ridiculous. There's an energy jobs boom going on in America, but it's in oil and gas, not green energy. According to a Bureau of Labor Statistics report, oil and gas production now accounts for 440,000 jobs, an increase of 80 percent since 2003.

It's even plausible to suggest that, with new technology and production methods, if you combine coal, natural gas, off-shore oil drilling and shale oil deposits, we could not only put our unemployed back to work, we can also end our dependence on foreign oil. And that, in turn, would stabilize gas prices at the pump.

And that can all be funded privately, with no Energy Department loan guarantees. If only the federal government would just can its political agenda, quit kowtowing to lobbyists and environmentalists, put the American people first and get the heck out of the way.

Don't get me wrong; I love green energy. And if the government wants to get involved, I have no problem with it funding some core research, building infrastructure and creating some shovel-ready jobs. But when it comes to funding individual companies, let private industry do its job. And when it comes to energy, our economy and our jobs, let the market decide.

Back in 2008, I wrote, "You don't want to end up like Icarus, who got a little too exuberant and flew too close to the sun. Wings melt, bubbles burst -- same result." Been there, done that; let's try something else.





winning..................


Libeeral energy idea's are nothing but a fantasy. Always have been..........always will be.

 

[percysunshine]

'How many nuke plants are you willing to build to power the electric cars?'


On a BTU basis, transporting chemical stored energy to the point of use in a moving demand source is more efficient, less costly, and less polluting than using wires.

Physics sucks...deal with it.

 

[rightwinger]

The electric car runs on batteries recharged off the regular power grid.

In order to charge all those cars overnight, it might require quite a lot of beefing up of the power grid.


Then there is the source of electric. It won't be hydro. Hydro is being taken down, not built up these days.

The real practical choices are coal (very very dirty, worse than petroleum) or natural gas (we got plenty, but its offshore. ) or nukes.


I personally think Thorium nukes are a good plan. They don't require the infrastructure of Uranium nukes. And we can practically mass produce them to fit a communities' needs, rather than having massive centralized plants.

Anyway, what are your choices for power. Wind and Solar are not yet ready for prime time, and solar won't work at night when the cars need charging.

Or maybe petroleum isn't such a bad deal after all

I have no problem with nuclear plants. They are long overdue

I'd like to see most electric car users install their own solar to charge their cars. You can either store the charge in batteries or sell the solar power to the grid and buy it back at night when it is cheaper

 

[RollingThunder]

The electric car runs on batteries recharged off the regular power grid.

In order to charge all those cars overnight, it might require quite a lot of beefing up of the power grid.


Then there is the source of electric. It won't be hydro. Hydro is being taken down, not built up these days.

The real practical choices are coal (very very dirty, worse than petroleum) or natural gas (we got plenty, but its offshore. ) or nukes.


I personally think Thorium nukes are a good plan. They don't require the infrastructure of Uranium nukes. And we can practically mass produce them to fit a communities' needs, rather than having massive centralized plants.

Anyway, what are your choices for power. Wind and Solar are not yet ready for prime time, and solar won't work at night when the cars need charging.

Or maybe petroleum isn't such a bad deal after all

What a load of silly nonsense. Petroleum is a very bad deal for many reasons. such as dwindling supplies, constantly rising prices, air and water pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions driving climate changes.

Your opinions about solar and wind are absurd and very stupid. Solar and wind power technologies are constantly improving and are already capable of meeting our energy needs if we build the capacity. Vastly improved batteries are moving into production and will allow energy storage on a scale that solves the intermittency problems.

You ask: "How many nuke plants are you willing to build to power the electric cars?"

The answer is 'none'. We don't need them. We may end up using some nuke plants of some kind but we actually can get all the energy we need from the sun, the wind and the ocean.

 

[uscitizen]

Still cheaper to build and operate "clean" coal plants than nuke plants.

 

[RollingThunder]

Still cheaper to build and operate "clean" coal plants than nuke plants.

Coal seems cheaper than other energy sources, especially clean sources like the sun and wind and ocean, only if you ignore the multiple externalized costs of mining and using coal and if you also ignore all of the subsidies and tax breaks the coal industry receives. The same is true for nuke plants.

Federal coal subsidies
(excerpts)
2011 Harvard report: external costs of coal up to $500 billion annually

A Feb. 2011 report by associate director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School Dr. Paul Epstein, "Mining Coal, Mounting Costs: the Life Cycle Consequences of Coal", found that accounting for the full costs of coal would double to triple its price. The study, to be released in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, tallies the economic, health and environmental costs associated with each stage in the life cycle of coal – extraction, transportation, processing, and combustion - and estimates the costs to be between $175 billion to $500 billion dollars annually, costs that are directly passed on to the public.[11] In terms of human health, the report estimates $74.6 billion a year in public health burdens in Appalachian communities, with a majority of the impact resulting from increased healthcare costs, injury and death. Emissions of air pollution and coal account for $187.5 billion, mercury impacts as high as $29.3 billion, and climate contributions from combustion between $61.7 and $205.8 billion. Heavy metal toxins and carcinogens released during processing pollute water and food sources and are linked to long-term health problems. Mining, transportation, and combustion of coal contribute to poor air quality and respiratory disease, while the risky nature of mining coal results in death and injury for workers.[11]

The study concluded: "Our comprehensive review finds that the best estimate for the total economically quantifiable costs, based on a conservative weighting of many of the study findings, amount to some $345.3 billion, adding close to 17.8¢/kWh of electricity generated from coal. The low estimate is $175 billion, or over 9¢/kWh, while the true monetizable costs could be as much as the upper bounds of $523.3 billion, adding close to 26.89¢/kWh. These and the more difficult to quantify externalities are borne by the general public." The average residential price of electricity at the time of the report is 12¢/kWh.[11] The study notes that even these numbers are certainly underestimates of the full cost of coal:[11] "Still these figures do not represent the full societal and environmental burden of coal. In quantifying the damages, we have omitted the impacts of toxic chemicals and heavy metals on ecological systems and diverse plants and animals; some ill-health endpoints (morbidity) aside from mortality related to air pollutants released through coal combustion that are still not captured; the direct risks and hazards posed by coal sludge, coal slurry, and coal waste impoundments; the full contributions of nitrogen deposition to eutrophication of fresh and coastal sea water; the prolonged impacts of acid rain and acid mine drainage; many of the long-term impacts on the physical and mental health of those living in coal-field regions and nearby MTR sites; some of the health impacts and climate forcing due to increased tropospheric ozone formation; and the full assessment of impacts due to an increasingly unstable climate."[11]

 

[chikenwing]

We need all of the above,intelligently distributed around the country base on needs and climate.

Pv doesn't work real well for high current demands in the north east,but south west does ok

A eastern city would have smaller nukes that can't melt down,my community could use Natural gas we have LOTS.

There is no one magic pill.But if electric cars are going main street the grid will need a large face lift,many new jobs an opportunities,but one thing is certain,you light bill will go way up.

 

[skookerasbil]

The electric car runs on batteries recharged off the regular power grid.

In order to charge all those cars overnight, it might require quite a lot of beefing up of the power grid.


Then there is the source of electric. It won't be hydro. Hydro is being taken down, not built up these days.

The real practical choices are coal (very very dirty, worse than petroleum) or natural gas (we got plenty, but its offshore. ) or nukes.


I personally think Thorium nukes are a good plan. They don't require the infrastructure of Uranium nukes. And we can practically mass produce them to fit a communities' needs, rather than having massive centralized plants.

Anyway, what are your choices for power. Wind and Solar are not yet ready for prime time, and solar won't work at night when the cars need charging.

Or maybe petroleum isn't such a bad deal after all

What a load of silly nonsense. Petroleum is a very bad deal for many reasons. such as dwindling supplies, constantly rising prices, air and water pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions driving climate changes.

Your opinions about solar and wind are absurd and very stupid. Solar and wind power technologies are constantly improving and are already capable of meeting our energy needs if we build the capacity. Vastly improved batteries are moving into production and will allow energy storage on a scale that solves the intermittency problems.

You ask: "How many nuke plants are you willing to build to power the electric cars?"

The answer is 'none'. We don't need them. We may end up using some nuke plants of some kind but we actually can get all the energy we need from the sun, the wind and the ocean.

fAiL

All energy forecasts to 2030 show renewables still being but a sliver of the pie..........well less than 10%.

Only the nutters are fine with electric rates increasing by 100% due to embracing a green energy policy. Ask any 100 Americans if they are ok with their electric bill going from $300/month to $600/month and the tradeoff is we are a bit greener.

 

[skookerasbil]

The environmental true believers live in a fantsy world that requires epic levels of spin.............these idiots read too much Plato, Sir Thomas Moore and Hobbes in their formative years. I read this shit too in my late teens and it was quite eye opening..............indeed, profound on some level, however, as most people expand their base of knowledge, they jettison that BS like a person quits a bad habit. MOST come to realize that practical application of utopian visions is a joke. A handful, remain spoofed for their entire lives and they are known as the far left. But thank God for them............they are the ones who provide the majority of us much laughter and entertainment.


Indeed.......5 years from now, these dolts will still be posting up link after link about how the imminent death of fossil fuels and how the world will be powered by windmills, the sun and algea. And people like me, wirebender, Ian, Frank, Westwall et. al. will still be laughing or asses off!!

But heres the poop, like it or not...............


March 17, 2012
King Dollar Will Cut Oil Prices
By Larry Kudlow

No matter how much President Obama protests, the simple fact is that he continues to oppose and mock and disparage oil and gas drilling. He is a prisoner of the environmental left, and he remains on the wrong side of energy history.

And that's exactly why he has a 59 percent negative rating on the economy, according to a recent poll, even though jobs and other indicators have actually picked up. It's about $4 or higher gas at the pump. Polls overwhelmingly show that Americans want drilling in ANWR and offshore, and that they want hydraulic fracturing of shale for oil and gas. They also overwhelmingly want the Keystone Pipeline (by roughly 70 percent). And they believe the government can act quickly to lower gas prices in the short run

But the president scoffs at all this. In his energy speech this week, he suggested that the drill, drill, drill crowd (of which I have long been a member) would have founded the Flat Earth Society. He says we might even have sided with 19th-century President Rutherford B. Hayes.

Ha, ha, ha. Very funny.

But the reality is oil, gas and coal -- not wind, solar, geothermal and algae -- are going to be crucial to America's transportation, electricity and economic growth for many decades to come.

What's particularly galling about Obama's riff is his constant use of a false statistic. The president argues that America uses more than 20 percent of the world's oil, although "even if we drill in every square inch of this country, we still only have 2 percent of the world's known oil reserves."

This is just patently untrue. According to the Institute for Energy Research, when you include oil shale, the U.S. has 1.4 trillion barrels of technically recoverable oil. That is enough to meet all U.S. oil needs for about the next 200 years, without any imports.




RealClearPolitics - King Dollar Will Cut Oil Prices








Like Ive been saying for years on here............who's not winning?