Before you go around insulting people and making yourself look like a complete ass I suggest you do a little research beyond the usual wikipedia crap and after you have educated yourself a little feel free to come back and participate.
planning for the inevitable
- Thread starter Old Rocks
- Start date
Before you go around insulting people and making yourself look like a complete ass I suggest you do a little research beyond the usual wikipedia crap and after you have educated yourself a little feel free to come back and participate.
skookerasbil
Platinum Member
Kooky, you are still one fucking dumb bastard.
Comparative electrical generation costs - SourceWatch
Busbar cost in cents per kilowatt-hour in 2008 dollars:
Coal:
Coal Supercritical: 10.554
Coal Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC): 11.481
Coal IGCC with Carbon Capture & Storage (IGCC with CCS): 17.317
Alternatives:
Biogas: 8.552
Wind: 8.910
Gas Combined Cycle: 9.382 (assumes $5.50 to $6.50/MMBtu for gas)
Geothermal: 10.182
Hydroelectric: 10.527
Concentrating solar thermal (CSP): 12.653
Nuclear: 15.316
Biomass: 16.485
Really? Sourcewatch? I trust these guys more than source watch, and the cost is in mills so to derive the cost per cent divide the numbers by 10.
Table 8.2. Average Power Plant Operating Expenses for Major U.S. Investor-Owned Electric Utilities, 1997 through 2008
(Mills per Kilowatthour)
Plant Type 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997
Operation
Nuclear 9.68 9.21 8.95 8.63 8.3 8.86 8.54 8.3 8.43 8.95 9.98 10.83
Fossil Steam 3.65 3.49 3.24 2.97 2.97 2.5 2.59 2.41 2.26 2.24 2.17 2.22
Hydroelectric[1] 5.78 5.44 3.76 3.95 3.95 3.47 3.71 4.27 3.52 3.35 3.09 2.65
Gas Turbine and Small Scale[2] 2.98 2.89 2.99 3 3 2.76 2.72 3.15 4.08 4.93 3.81 4.36
Maintenance
Nuclear 6.2 5.79 5.69 5.27 5.27 5.23 5.04 5.02 4.96 5.01 5.77 6.73
Fossil Steam 3.59 3.37 3.19 2.98 2.98 2.72 2.67 2.61 2.42 2.46 2.41 2.42
Hydroelectric[1] 3.89 3.87 2.7 2.73 2.73 2.32 2.62 2.89 2.22 2.03 1.58 1.98
Gas Turbine and Small Scale[2] 2.72 2.42 2.16 1.89 1.89 2.26 2.38 3.33 3.26 4.78 3.42 3.33
Fuel
Nuclear 5.29 4.99 4.85 4.63 4.63 4.6 4.6 4.67 4.9 5.16 5.39 5.41
Fossil Steam 28.43 23.88 23.09 21.69 21.69 17.29 16.09 18.15 17.73 15.5 15.86 16.73
Hydroelectric[1] -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Gas Turbine and Small Scale[2] 64.23 58.75 53.89 55.52 55.52 43.89 31.84 43.55 41.76 27.95 22.85 24.71
Total
Nuclear 21.16 20 19.49 18.53 18.53 18.69 18.18 17.99 18.29 19.12 21.13 22.96
Fossil Steam 35.67 30.74 29.52 27.64 27.64 22.51 21.36 23.17 22.41 20.2 20.43 21.38
Hydroelectric[1] 9.67 9.32 6.46 6.68 6.68 5.79 6.33 7.16 5.74 5.38 4.67 4.64
Gas Turbine and Small Scale[2] 69.93 64.06 59.04 60.41 60.41 48.91 36.94 50.03 49.09 37.66 30.08 32.41
[1] Conventional hydro and pumped storage.
[2] Gas turbine, internal combustion, photovoltaic, and wind plants.
Notes: Data for the years 1997 - 2007 were updated reflecting revisions reported by Energy Velocity. Expenses are average expenses weighted by net generation. A mill is a monetary cost and billing unit equal to 1/1000 of the U.S. dollar (equivalent to 1/10 of one cent). Totals may not equal sum of components because of independent rounding.
Source: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC Form 1, "Annual Report of Major Electric Utilities, Licensees and Others."
Electric Power Annual - Average Power Plant Operating Expenses for Major U.S. Investor-Owned Electric Utilities
LMAO..................Sourcewatch???????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SourceWatch
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
SourceWatch (formerly Disinfopedia) is an internet site that is a collaborative project of the liberal[1] Center for Media and Democracy (CMD). According to the project's website, it "aims to produce a directory of public relations firms, think tanks, industry-funded organizations and industry-friendly experts that work to influence public opinion and public policy on behalf of corporations, governments and special interest groups."[2]
You see people..............Old Rocks is a far left FRAUD!!!!
He has and will continue to do one thing in this forum.............
Post up phoney data and phoney web sites supported ONLY by the liberal view = Stupid levels of phoney!!!
Last edited:
skookerasbil
Platinum Member
HERE are the costs of a green economy...........the true costs, which are staggering!!! The middle class will be fcukked beyond fcukked!!!!
And ps.......this article is from a REAL link, not some bogus hyperpartisan website. This is from REALCLEAR Politics...........the site all liberals reference for polling data
Written by a REALCLEAR Politics staffter.
April 27, 2009
Selling the Green Economy
By Robert Samuelson
WASHINGTON -- Few things are more appealing in politics than something for nothing. As Congress begins considering anti-global warming legislation, environmentalists hold out precisely that tantalizing prospect: We can conquer global warming at virtually no cost. Here's a typical claim from the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF):
"For about a dime a day (per person), we can solve climate change, invest in a clean energy future, and save billions in imported oil."
This sounds too good to be true, because it is. About four-fifths of the world's and America's energy comes from fossil fuels -- oil, coal, natural gas -- which are also the largest source of man-made carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse gas. The goal is to eliminate fossil fuels or suppress their CO2. The bill now being considered in the House would mandate a 42 percent decline in greenhouse emissions by 2030 from 2005 levels and an 83 percent drop by 2050.
Re-engineering the world energy system seems an almost impossible undertaking. Just consider America's energy needs in 2030, as estimated by the Energy Information Administration (EIA). Compared with 2007, the United States is projected to have almost 25 percent more people (375 million), an economy about 70 percent larger ($20 trillion) and 27 percent more light-duty vehicles (294 million). Energy demand will be strong.
But the EIA also assumes greater conservation and use of renewables. From 2007 to 2030, solar power grows 18 times, wind 6 times. New cars and light trucks get 50 percent better gas mileage. Light bulbs and washing machines become more efficient. Higher energy prices discourage use; by 2030, oil is $130 a barrel in today's dollars. For all that, U.S. CO2 emissions in 2030 are projected at 6.2 billion metric tons, 4 percent higher than in 2007. As an example, solar and wind together would still supply only about 5 percent of electricity, because they expand from a tiny base.
To comply with the House bill, CO2 emissions would have to be about 3.5 billion tons. The claims of the EDF and other environmentalists that this reduction can occur cheaply rely on economic simulations by "general equilibrium" models. An Environmental Protection Agency study put the cost as low as $98 per household a year, because high energy prices are partly offset by government rebates. With 2.5 people in the average household, that's roughly 11 cents a day per person.
The trouble is that these models embody wildly unrealistic assumptions: there are no business cycles; the economy is always at "full employment"; strong growth is assumed, based on past growth rates; the economy automatically accommodates major changes -- if fossil fuel prices rise (as they would under anti-global warming laws), consumers quickly use less and new supplies of "clean energy" magically materialize.
There's no problem and costs are low, because the models say so. But the real world, of course, is different. Half the nation's electricity comes from coal. The costs of "carbon capture and sequestration" -- storing CO2 underground -- are uncertain, and if the technology can't be commercialized, coal plants will continue to emit or might need to be replaced by nuclear plants. Will Americans support a doubling or tripling of nuclear power? Could technical and construction obstacles be overcome in a timely way? Paralysis might lead to power brownouts or blackouts, which would penalize economic growth.
Countless practical difficulties would arise in trying to wean the U.S. economy from today's fossil fuels. One estimate done by economists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that meeting most transportation needs in 2050 with locally produced biofuels would require "500 million acres of U.S. land, ... more than the total of current U.S. cropland." America would have to become a net food importer.
In truth, models have a dismal record of predicting major economic upheavals or their consequences. They didn't anticipate the present economic crisis. Earlier, they didn't predict the run-up in oil prices to almost $150 a barrel last year. In the 1970s, they didn't foresee runaway inflation. "General equilibrium" models can help evaluate different policy proposals by comparing them against a common baseline. But these models can't tell us how the economy will look in 10 or 20 years, because so much is assumed or ignored -- growth rates; financial and geopolitical crises; major bottlenecks; crippling inflation or unemployment.
The selling of the green economy involves much economic make-believe. Environmentalists not only maximize the dangers of global warming -- from rising sea levels to advancing tropical diseases. They also minimize the costs of dealing with it. Actually, no one involved in this debate really knows what the consequences or costs might be. All are inferred from models of uncertain reliability. Great schemes of economic and social engineering are proposed on shaky foundations of knowledge. Candor and common sense are in scarce supply.
RealClearPolitics - Selling the Green Economy
Ooooops!!!!!!!
Ooooooooops!!!!!!!
Ooooooooooooooooooops!!!!!!!
And ps.......this article is from a REAL link, not some bogus hyperpartisan website. This is from REALCLEAR Politics...........the site all liberals reference for polling data
Written by a REALCLEAR Politics staffter.April 27, 2009
Selling the Green Economy
By Robert Samuelson
WASHINGTON -- Few things are more appealing in politics than something for nothing. As Congress begins considering anti-global warming legislation, environmentalists hold out precisely that tantalizing prospect: We can conquer global warming at virtually no cost. Here's a typical claim from the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF):
"For about a dime a day (per person), we can solve climate change, invest in a clean energy future, and save billions in imported oil."
This sounds too good to be true, because it is. About four-fifths of the world's and America's energy comes from fossil fuels -- oil, coal, natural gas -- which are also the largest source of man-made carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse gas. The goal is to eliminate fossil fuels or suppress their CO2. The bill now being considered in the House would mandate a 42 percent decline in greenhouse emissions by 2030 from 2005 levels and an 83 percent drop by 2050.
Re-engineering the world energy system seems an almost impossible undertaking. Just consider America's energy needs in 2030, as estimated by the Energy Information Administration (EIA). Compared with 2007, the United States is projected to have almost 25 percent more people (375 million), an economy about 70 percent larger ($20 trillion) and 27 percent more light-duty vehicles (294 million). Energy demand will be strong.
But the EIA also assumes greater conservation and use of renewables. From 2007 to 2030, solar power grows 18 times, wind 6 times. New cars and light trucks get 50 percent better gas mileage. Light bulbs and washing machines become more efficient. Higher energy prices discourage use; by 2030, oil is $130 a barrel in today's dollars. For all that, U.S. CO2 emissions in 2030 are projected at 6.2 billion metric tons, 4 percent higher than in 2007. As an example, solar and wind together would still supply only about 5 percent of electricity, because they expand from a tiny base.
To comply with the House bill, CO2 emissions would have to be about 3.5 billion tons. The claims of the EDF and other environmentalists that this reduction can occur cheaply rely on economic simulations by "general equilibrium" models. An Environmental Protection Agency study put the cost as low as $98 per household a year, because high energy prices are partly offset by government rebates. With 2.5 people in the average household, that's roughly 11 cents a day per person.
The trouble is that these models embody wildly unrealistic assumptions: there are no business cycles; the economy is always at "full employment"; strong growth is assumed, based on past growth rates; the economy automatically accommodates major changes -- if fossil fuel prices rise (as they would under anti-global warming laws), consumers quickly use less and new supplies of "clean energy" magically materialize.
There's no problem and costs are low, because the models say so. But the real world, of course, is different. Half the nation's electricity comes from coal. The costs of "carbon capture and sequestration" -- storing CO2 underground -- are uncertain, and if the technology can't be commercialized, coal plants will continue to emit or might need to be replaced by nuclear plants. Will Americans support a doubling or tripling of nuclear power? Could technical and construction obstacles be overcome in a timely way? Paralysis might lead to power brownouts or blackouts, which would penalize economic growth.
Countless practical difficulties would arise in trying to wean the U.S. economy from today's fossil fuels. One estimate done by economists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that meeting most transportation needs in 2050 with locally produced biofuels would require "500 million acres of U.S. land, ... more than the total of current U.S. cropland." America would have to become a net food importer.
In truth, models have a dismal record of predicting major economic upheavals or their consequences. They didn't anticipate the present economic crisis. Earlier, they didn't predict the run-up in oil prices to almost $150 a barrel last year. In the 1970s, they didn't foresee runaway inflation. "General equilibrium" models can help evaluate different policy proposals by comparing them against a common baseline. But these models can't tell us how the economy will look in 10 or 20 years, because so much is assumed or ignored -- growth rates; financial and geopolitical crises; major bottlenecks; crippling inflation or unemployment.
The selling of the green economy involves much economic make-believe. Environmentalists not only maximize the dangers of global warming -- from rising sea levels to advancing tropical diseases. They also minimize the costs of dealing with it. Actually, no one involved in this debate really knows what the consequences or costs might be. All are inferred from models of uncertain reliability. Great schemes of economic and social engineering are proposed on shaky foundations of knowledge. Candor and common sense are in scarce supply.
RealClearPolitics - Selling the Green Economy
Ooooops!!!!!!!
Ooooooooops!!!!!!!
Ooooooooooooooooooops!!!!!!!
Last edited:
skookerasbil
Platinum Member
Ive been saying it for well over 10 years..................all this global warming/climate change stuff is a GIGANTIC hoax!!!
daveman
Diamond Member
skookerasbil
Platinum Member
skookerasbil
Platinum Member
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 153,179
- 78,409
- 2,645
Are you still selling seats?
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Trump touts $9 trillion in new U.S. investment. The numbers don't add up.- Started by IM2
- Replies: 2
-
Almost half of Gazans willing to leave, survey finds
- Started by toomuchtime_
- Replies: 1
-
-
Latest Discussions
-
Trump touts $9 trillion in new U.S. investment. The numbers don't add up.
- Latest: Nuthin' Fancy
-
-
-
