danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #81
Socialism has to bailout capitalism all the time.
And,
technologies are improving all the time.
And,
technologies are improving all the time.
How much can renewable energy save us?
- Thread starter Old Rocks
- Start date
- Feb 12, 2007
- 59,734
- 24,695
- 2,290
Ask the Germans (hint, they were better off with nuclear):
The trouble is that Germany isn’t an ideal place for solar and wind power. So to cover any shortfalls in energy production, the nation would have to be able to rely on energy imports from neighboring countries.
But that was a minor issue for the German government obsessed with the green energy revolution. German energy giants like RWE and E.ON were required to close eight nuclear power plants immediately in March 2011.
“Obviously, the loss of profits was immense,” adds Burdenski. “The companies sued the German government for redress. Just a few weeks ago, the Federal Constitutional Court judged in favor of E.on, RWE and Vattenfall in a first ruling. Further lawsuits are still outstanding. The companies will now receive compensation for investments made between the lifetime extension in fall 2010 and the abandonment of nuclear energy in 2011.”
Now investors, workers, and taxpayers are counting their losses from the green energy disaster. E.on’s and RWE’s stocks have lost 80 percent of their value from the old time highs, as the two companies have had to adjust their business model to the green policies. Workers have been losing their jobs, and taxpayers are in for billions of euros to cover the write off of nuclear plants—E.on and RWE have won lawsuits against government.
As of German consumers, they pay one of the highest electricity rates in the developed world....
Forbes Welcome
The trouble is that Germany isn’t an ideal place for solar and wind power. So to cover any shortfalls in energy production, the nation would have to be able to rely on energy imports from neighboring countries.
But that was a minor issue for the German government obsessed with the green energy revolution. German energy giants like RWE and E.ON were required to close eight nuclear power plants immediately in March 2011.
“Obviously, the loss of profits was immense,” adds Burdenski. “The companies sued the German government for redress. Just a few weeks ago, the Federal Constitutional Court judged in favor of E.on, RWE and Vattenfall in a first ruling. Further lawsuits are still outstanding. The companies will now receive compensation for investments made between the lifetime extension in fall 2010 and the abandonment of nuclear energy in 2011.”
Now investors, workers, and taxpayers are counting their losses from the green energy disaster. E.on’s and RWE’s stocks have lost 80 percent of their value from the old time highs, as the two companies have had to adjust their business model to the green policies. Workers have been losing their jobs, and taxpayers are in for billions of euros to cover the write off of nuclear plants—E.on and RWE have won lawsuits against government.
As of German consumers, they pay one of the highest electricity rates in the developed world....
Forbes Welcome
danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #83
They just need to upgrade, to sextuple their energy output.
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #84
Nuclear power in the United States - Wikipedia
Over-commitment and cancellations[edit]
See also: List of canceled nuclear plants in the United States
Net summer electrical generation capacity of US nuclear power plants, 1949-2011
Average capacity factor of US nuclear power plants, 1957-2011
By the mid-1970s it became clear that nuclear power would not grow nearly as quickly as once believed. Cost overruns were sometimes a factor of ten above original industry estimates, and became a major problem. For the 75 nuclear power reactors built from 1966 to 1977, cost overruns averaged 207 percent. Opposition and problems were galvanized by the Three Mile Island accident in 1979.[30]
Over-commitment to nuclear power brought about the financial collapse of the Washington Public Power Supply System, a public agency which undertook to build five large nuclear power plants in the 1970s. By 1983, cost overruns and delays, along with a slowing of electricity demand growth, led to cancellation of two WPPSS plants and a construction halt on two others. Moreover, WPPSS defaulted on $2.25 billion of municipal bonds, which is one of the largest municipal bond defaults in U.S. history. The court case that followed took nearly a decade to resolve.[31][32][33]
Eventually, more than 120 reactor orders were cancelled,[34] and the construction of new reactors ground to a halt. Al Gore has commented on the historical record and reliability of nuclear power in the United States:
Of the 253 nuclear power reactors originally ordered in the United States from 1953 to 2008, 48 percent were canceled, 11 percent were prematurely shut down, 14 percent experienced at least a one-year-or-more outage, and 27 percent are operating without having a year-plus outage. Thus, only about one fourth of those ordered, or about half of those completed, are still operating and have proved relatively reliable.[35]
Amory Lovins has also commented on the historical record of nuclear power in the United States:
Of all 132 U.S. nuclear plants built (52% of the 253 originally ordered), 21% were permanently and prematurely closed due to reliability or cost problems, while another 27% have completely failed for a year or more at least once. The surviving U.S. nuclear plants produce ~90% of their full-time full-load potential, but even they are not fully dependable. Even reliably operating nuclear plants must shut down, on average, for 39 days every 17 months for refueling and maintenance, and unexpected failures do occur too.[36]
A cover story in the February 11, 1985, issue of Forbes magazine commented on the overall management of the nuclear power program in the United States:
The failure of the U.S. nuclear power program ranks as the largest managerial disaster in business history, a disaster on a monumental scale … only the blind, or the biased, can now think that the money has been well spent. It is a defeat for the U.S. consumer and for the competitiveness of U.S. industry, for the utilities that undertook the program and for the private enterprise system that made it possible.[37]
FUBARs in the nuke industry killed the nuke industry. Let the dead stay dead.
Over-commitment and cancellations[edit]
See also: List of canceled nuclear plants in the United States
Net summer electrical generation capacity of US nuclear power plants, 1949-2011
Average capacity factor of US nuclear power plants, 1957-2011
By the mid-1970s it became clear that nuclear power would not grow nearly as quickly as once believed. Cost overruns were sometimes a factor of ten above original industry estimates, and became a major problem. For the 75 nuclear power reactors built from 1966 to 1977, cost overruns averaged 207 percent. Opposition and problems were galvanized by the Three Mile Island accident in 1979.[30]
Over-commitment to nuclear power brought about the financial collapse of the Washington Public Power Supply System, a public agency which undertook to build five large nuclear power plants in the 1970s. By 1983, cost overruns and delays, along with a slowing of electricity demand growth, led to cancellation of two WPPSS plants and a construction halt on two others. Moreover, WPPSS defaulted on $2.25 billion of municipal bonds, which is one of the largest municipal bond defaults in U.S. history. The court case that followed took nearly a decade to resolve.[31][32][33]
Eventually, more than 120 reactor orders were cancelled,[34] and the construction of new reactors ground to a halt. Al Gore has commented on the historical record and reliability of nuclear power in the United States:
Of the 253 nuclear power reactors originally ordered in the United States from 1953 to 2008, 48 percent were canceled, 11 percent were prematurely shut down, 14 percent experienced at least a one-year-or-more outage, and 27 percent are operating without having a year-plus outage. Thus, only about one fourth of those ordered, or about half of those completed, are still operating and have proved relatively reliable.[35]
Amory Lovins has also commented on the historical record of nuclear power in the United States:
Of all 132 U.S. nuclear plants built (52% of the 253 originally ordered), 21% were permanently and prematurely closed due to reliability or cost problems, while another 27% have completely failed for a year or more at least once. The surviving U.S. nuclear plants produce ~90% of their full-time full-load potential, but even they are not fully dependable. Even reliably operating nuclear plants must shut down, on average, for 39 days every 17 months for refueling and maintenance, and unexpected failures do occur too.[36]
A cover story in the February 11, 1985, issue of Forbes magazine commented on the overall management of the nuclear power program in the United States:
The failure of the U.S. nuclear power program ranks as the largest managerial disaster in business history, a disaster on a monumental scale … only the blind, or the biased, can now think that the money has been well spent. It is a defeat for the U.S. consumer and for the competitiveness of U.S. industry, for the utilities that undertook the program and for the private enterprise system that made it possible.[37]
FUBARs in the nuke industry killed the nuke industry. Let the dead stay dead.
elektra
Diamond Member
Only an old moron would quote wikipedia.
The USA has demonstrated the reliability and feasibility of Nuclear power. Today, we create more power, with less Nuclear power plants than in the past.
Some Nuclear Power plants in the USA operate 500 days in a row without shutting down. Nuclear Power plants designed to last 20 years are operating 30, 40 years, and more.
Yes, it can be expensive to fight frivolous lawsuits allowed by activist Judges. And yes, the endless regulations the government saddles Nuclear power plants with can be very expensive.
But, that said, the United States Produces more electricity today, from Nuclear power plants than it did yesterday.
Nuclear Power Today | Nuclear Energy - World Nuclear Association
You know what the secret is, Liberal Democrats hate a strong United States, they want us as weak as a third world country, with no power, no real power, certainly not the strongest power in the World. NUCLEAR POWER.
Think about it, Democrats authorized the transfer of Nuclear Technology to China, the Westinghouse AP1000, China is now the World's leader in new Nuclear Power Plant construction. On top of that, China can manufacture AP1000 pressure vessels, the USA can not do that.
Democrats are happy to see the USA lose. To see the USA weak and pitiful, they believe we deserve to be in last place.
The USA has demonstrated the reliability and feasibility of Nuclear power. Today, we create more power, with less Nuclear power plants than in the past.
Some Nuclear Power plants in the USA operate 500 days in a row without shutting down. Nuclear Power plants designed to last 20 years are operating 30, 40 years, and more.
Yes, it can be expensive to fight frivolous lawsuits allowed by activist Judges. And yes, the endless regulations the government saddles Nuclear power plants with can be very expensive.
But, that said, the United States Produces more electricity today, from Nuclear power plants than it did yesterday.
Nuclear Power Today | Nuclear Energy - World Nuclear Association
You know what the secret is, Liberal Democrats hate a strong United States, they want us as weak as a third world country, with no power, no real power, certainly not the strongest power in the World. NUCLEAR POWER.
Think about it, Democrats authorized the transfer of Nuclear Technology to China, the Westinghouse AP1000, China is now the World's leader in new Nuclear Power Plant construction. On top of that, China can manufacture AP1000 pressure vessels, the USA can not do that.
Democrats are happy to see the USA lose. To see the USA weak and pitiful, they believe we deserve to be in last place.
Sun Devil 92
Diamond Member
- Apr 2, 2015
- 32,078
- 11,107
- 1,410
- Banned
- #86
Not by a long shot.
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #87
Solar and Wind: How Low Can They Go?
For the second year in a row, wind and solar accounted for roughly two-thirds of new U.S. generating capacity, while natural gas and nuclear made up most of the rest.
That’s because right now, in much of the United States, wind and solar are the cheapest form of power available, according to a new report from investment bank Lazard.
Analysts found that new solar and wind installations are cheaper than a new coal-fired power installation just about everywhere — even without subsidies. The cost of renewables continues to fall rapidly.
Solar and wind are getting really, really cheap.
Since just last year, the cost of utility-scale solar has dropped 10 percent, and the cost of residential solar dropped a whopping 26 percent — and that is coming after years of price declines. The cost of offshore wind declined by 22 percent since last year, though it still remains more expensive than onshore wind.
The Lazard report is just the latest chapter in the success story of renewable energy. Since 2009, the cost of solar has been cut nearly in half. The cost of wind has fallen by two-thirds. The precipitous drop in price is reminiscent of shrinking costs for personal computers. Wind and, particularly solar, have yet to level off. New technologies and cheaper materials will continue to drive down costs in the years ahead.
CREDCIT: Lazard
LOL
For the second year in a row, wind and solar accounted for roughly two-thirds of new U.S. generating capacity, while natural gas and nuclear made up most of the rest.
That’s because right now, in much of the United States, wind and solar are the cheapest form of power available, according to a new report from investment bank Lazard.
Analysts found that new solar and wind installations are cheaper than a new coal-fired power installation just about everywhere — even without subsidies. The cost of renewables continues to fall rapidly.
Solar and wind are getting really, really cheap.
Since just last year, the cost of utility-scale solar has dropped 10 percent, and the cost of residential solar dropped a whopping 26 percent — and that is coming after years of price declines. The cost of offshore wind declined by 22 percent since last year, though it still remains more expensive than onshore wind.
The Lazard report is just the latest chapter in the success story of renewable energy. Since 2009, the cost of solar has been cut nearly in half. The cost of wind has fallen by two-thirds. The precipitous drop in price is reminiscent of shrinking costs for personal computers. Wind and, particularly solar, have yet to level off. New technologies and cheaper materials will continue to drive down costs in the years ahead.
CREDCIT: Lazard
LOL
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #88
Wind and solar are our cheapest electricity sources – now what do we do?
Wind and Solar Costs Are Plummeting: Now What Do We Do?
by 3p Contributor on Monday, Jan 2nd, 2017 CLIMATE & ENVIRONMENT
By Mike O’Boyle
For years, debates about how to reduce carbon emissions from electricity generation were framed as trade-offs: What is the cost premium we must pay for generating zero-carbon electricity compared to fossil fuels, and how can we minimize those costs?
Fortunately, the holidays came early this year for renewable energy: In investment company Lazard’s annual report on the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for different electricity-generating technologies, renewables are now the cheapest available sources of electricity. This flips the question of clean-versus-cost on its head. And in 2017, we’ll be asking: How much can we save by accelerating the renewable energy transition?
The story from Lazard’s 10th annual report is clear. Rapid technology cost reductions mean wind and solar are now the cheapest form of generation in many places around the country, without federal subsidies like tax credits.
What does levelized cost of energy mean?
Lazard uses LCOE analysis to identify how much each unit of electricity (measured in megawatt-hours or MWh) costs to generate over the lifetime of any power plant. LCOE represents every cost component – capital expenditure to build, operations and maintenance, and fuel costs to run – spread out over the total megawatt-hours generated during the power plant’s lifetime.
Because different plants have different operating characteristics and cost components, LCOE allows us to fairly compare different technologies. Think of it as finally being able to evenly compare apples to oranges.
How wind and solar are winning the day
According to Lazard, wind costs have fallen 66 percent since 2009, from $140/MWh to $47/MWh.
Large-scale solar’s cost declines are even more dramatic, falling 85 percent since 2009 from more than $350/MWh to $55/MWh.
Wind and solar, winners for sure.
Wind and Solar Costs Are Plummeting: Now What Do We Do?
by 3p Contributor on Monday, Jan 2nd, 2017 CLIMATE & ENVIRONMENT
By Mike O’Boyle
For years, debates about how to reduce carbon emissions from electricity generation were framed as trade-offs: What is the cost premium we must pay for generating zero-carbon electricity compared to fossil fuels, and how can we minimize those costs?
Fortunately, the holidays came early this year for renewable energy: In investment company Lazard’s annual report on the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for different electricity-generating technologies, renewables are now the cheapest available sources of electricity. This flips the question of clean-versus-cost on its head. And in 2017, we’ll be asking: How much can we save by accelerating the renewable energy transition?
The story from Lazard’s 10th annual report is clear. Rapid technology cost reductions mean wind and solar are now the cheapest form of generation in many places around the country, without federal subsidies like tax credits.
What does levelized cost of energy mean?
Lazard uses LCOE analysis to identify how much each unit of electricity (measured in megawatt-hours or MWh) costs to generate over the lifetime of any power plant. LCOE represents every cost component – capital expenditure to build, operations and maintenance, and fuel costs to run – spread out over the total megawatt-hours generated during the power plant’s lifetime.
Because different plants have different operating characteristics and cost components, LCOE allows us to fairly compare different technologies. Think of it as finally being able to evenly compare apples to oranges.
How wind and solar are winning the day
According to Lazard, wind costs have fallen 66 percent since 2009, from $140/MWh to $47/MWh.
Large-scale solar’s cost declines are even more dramatic, falling 85 percent since 2009 from more than $350/MWh to $55/MWh.
Wind and solar, winners for sure.
elektra
Diamond Member
Yet, for all the hype about Renewable Energy, you can not use Renewable Energy to produce Wind Turbines or Solar Panels. It is too weak, you need Coal to produce Wind Turbines and Solar Panels.
At best, Wind Turbines and Solar Panels are dependent on increased use of Coal.
At best, Wind Turbines and Solar Panels are dependent on increased use of Coal.
elektra
Diamond Member
Seems very expensive to me, so many different figures, which do we believe? $33 trillion, $12.1 trillion? The government low-balls these things, I bet it costs $100 trillion.
New report: $12.1 trillion must be invested in new renewable power generation over next 25 years to limit climate change — Ceres
New report: $12.1 trillion must be invested in new renewable power generation over next 25 years to limit climate change
New report: $12.1 trillion must be invested in new renewable power generation over next 25 years to limit climate change — Ceres
New report: $12.1 trillion must be invested in new renewable power generation over next 25 years to limit climate change
danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #92
some on the left are advancing, fusion (an energy with a future).
danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #93
science and technology is improving all the time.
many grids just need to be upgraded with the latest technologies; to sextuple energy output in a bird friendly manner.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
And none on the right? LOL!
danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #95
i thought they were cronies for fission.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Fission is awesome and it works right now.
If the left were truly afraid of CO2 and didn't want to damage the economy, they'd support it instead of wind and solar.
danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #97
after a Manhattan Project. Why not something similar for fusion (an energy with a future)?
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
You do realize we've been spending billions on fusion research for some time now?
danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #99
Nothing compared to fission and that Manhattan Project.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
So what? Fission is actually a useful source of reliable energy.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Pro boxer Georgia O'Connor dies at 25 after doctors dismissed cancer concerns- Started by shockedcanadian
- Replies: 0
-
Trump does not need qualified professionals in the federal government- Started by odanny
- Replies: 4
-
-
Our survival by 2049 depends on our independence by tariffs like 25% on Apple and other companies!
- Started by healthmyths
- Replies: 10
-
Latest Discussions
-
-
J.D. Vance to Chief Justice Roberts: The Judiciary Must Check Its Own Excesses- Latest: John Edgar Slow Horses
-
-
Vance (and no doubt Trump) believe the Judiciary is not an equal part of the US govt
- Latest: John Edgar Slow Horses