Kyoto Protocol vol.2

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=2

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.

Looks like a number of posters here cannot read. 3.7 cents a kilowatt is a lot cheaper than 6.1 or 6.6 cents a kilowatt. And neither wind nor solar has externalities like childrens asthma.
 
Looks like conventional does better than renewables at sucking up taxpayer dollars.

When It Comes to Government Subsidies Dirty Energy Still Cleans Up - Businessweek

If countries priced carbon dioxide emissions from power plants somewhere near the cost they impose on the global environment, renewables would be overwhelmingly attractive. But imagine if governments just got rid of the direct and indirect subsidies that big fossil enjoys—from retail price support through strategic oil reserves, and below-market costs for drilling and mining rights to tax incentives for exploration, drilling, and leasing equipment. The removal of unfair competition would make renewable energy, including solar, the financial winner in ever more investment decisions.

The rapid advance of cost parity in solar production highlights the folly of slapping 30 percent tariffs on Chinese solar panel imports, as the U.S. Commerce Department recently did. The U.S. is blessed with a geographical location that is far sunnier than those of countries such as Germany, yet the U.S. still lags considerably behind them in the production and use of solar power. Rather than spending time making solar panel imports more expensive, why not save money, the climate, and natural security concerns by taking on Big Fossil instead?

That's pure bullshit because CO2 doesn't impose a single cent of cost on the environment. Plants need it to live. There are also virtually no subsidies to oil or coal. That's environmental wacko propaganda.

The only way to make green energy look attractive is with fictitious numbers.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=2

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.

Looks like a number of posters here cannot read. 3.7 cents a kilowatt is a lot cheaper than 6.1 or 6.6 cents a kilowatt. And neither wind nor solar has externalities like childrens asthma.

Your numbers are pure made-up hooey. There also isn't a shred of evidence that any coal plant ever aggravated a single case of asthma.
 
And you have multiple Phd's and publications in those disciplines, that is why you can make such a statement with such surety?

I can read a chart published by the Dept of Energy. It says the levelized costs of Wind and PV are far more expensive than coal and natural gas.
 
Published when?

And don't bother to lie concerning asthma and coal fired plants.


Dirty Air Dirty Power - Clean Air Task Force CATF
  • Fine particle pollution from U.S. power plants cuts short the lives of nearly 24,000 people each year, including 2800 from lung cancer.
  • The average number of life-years lost by individuals dying prematurely from exposure to particulate matter is 14 years.
  • Hundreds of thousands of Americans suffer each year from asthma attacks, cardiac problems, and respiratory problems associated with fine particles from power plants. These illnesses result in tens of thousands of emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and lost work days each year.
  • Power plant pollution is responsible for 38,200 non-fatal heart attacks per year.
  • The elderly, children, and those with respiratory disease are most severely affected by fine particle pollution from power plants.
  • People who live in metropolitan areas near coal-fired plants feel their impacts most acutely . their attributable death rates are much higher than areas with few or no coal-fired plants.
  • The vast majority (at least 90 percent or 22,000) of the deaths due to fine particle pollution could be avoided by capping power plant sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide pollution at levels consistent with the installation of today's best available emissions controls.
  • Compared with the requirements of current law, the Bush Administration's so-called "Clear Skies" proposal would result in 4,000 additional preventable premature deaths each year while repealing the very safeguards that could save those additional lives.
 
Published when?

And don't bother to lie concerning asthma and coal fired plants.


Dirty Air Dirty Power - Clean Air Task Force CATF
  • Fine particle pollution from U.S. power plants cuts short the lives of nearly 24,000 people each year, including 2800 from lung cancer.
  • The average number of life-years lost by individuals dying prematurely from exposure to particulate matter is 14 years.
  • Hundreds of thousands of Americans suffer each year from asthma attacks, cardiac problems, and respiratory problems associated with fine particles from power plants. These illnesses result in tens of thousands of emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and lost work days each year.
  • Power plant pollution is responsible for 38,200 non-fatal heart attacks per year.
  • The elderly, children, and those with respiratory disease are most severely affected by fine particle pollution from power plants.
  • People who live in metropolitan areas near coal-fired plants feel their impacts most acutely . their attributable death rates are much higher than areas with few or no coal-fired plants.
  • The vast majority (at least 90 percent or 22,000) of the deaths due to fine particle pollution could be avoided by capping power plant sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide pollution at levels consistent with the installation of today's best available emissions controls.
  • Compared with the requirements of current law, the Bush Administration's so-called "Clear Skies" proposal would result in 4,000 additional preventable premature deaths each year while repealing the very safeguards that could save those additional lives.

Horseshit. According to whom?

I posted a link to the chart. You obviously didn't bother to even look at it.
 
How about you demonstrate that Matthew's comments are false with a little verifiable data?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top