Why I Don't Fall for Manmade Global Warming

[Derideo_Te]

Those OLD OBSOLETE plants are not gonna last much longer. Wanna ignore that problem??

Why do you want to make that same problem so much bigger?

We already know that nuclear is unsafe because nothing is infallible and you cannot afford any mistakes with nuclear power. And yes, that applies to the waste products that need to be stored for tens of thousands of years without any mistakes. That is impossible.

Wind power has sufficient potential to supply 3 times the current energy needs of the entire world. Wind power is what enabled Columbus to discover the Americas. Wind power has been grinding grains and pumping water for centuries. Wind technology has now matured into a safe, effective and environmentally friendly means of generating power.

Wind power is the future.

How many days a year do you think the wind field produces ANY significant energy? Are you that dense??

Windmills are placed where there are consistent winds blowing.

Energy Dept. Reports: U.S. Wind Energy Production and Manufacturing Reaches Record Highs

The report finds that distributed wind in the U.S. reached a 10-year cumulative installed capacity of more than 812 megawatts (MW) at the end of 2012 – representing more than 69,000 units across all 50 states. Between 2011 and 2012, U.S. distributed wind capacity grew by 175 MW, with about 80 percent of this growth coming from utility-scale installations. At the state level, Iowa, Massachusetts, California and Wisconsin led the nation in new distributed wind power capacity in 2012.

http://www.awea.org/generationrecords

 

[flacaltenn]

Checked into solar power here in California, 100% Democrat controlled:
No financial incentive offered.
Net metering ends soon.
You can only build enough solar to meet your demand, no more.
Legislation is currently in progress to tax solar users because "they don't pay their fair share"

You see hundreds of private jets fly into climate change conferences, mansions heated and cooled by the doomsayers, etc etc.
Like I said, when leftards start acting like its a crisis I will start listening.

your "belief" in science has zero effect on its existence. the rest of your non sequiturs aren't worth response.

Really? The recent collapse of massive solar subsidies in Cali and reform of their harebrained "alternative" plans "aren't worth discussing"?

Weatherman is correct --- If you wanted to fix Global Warming tomorrow -- you would be building 100 new nuclear plants today.. Why isn't that happening? Because eco-leftists are MORE afraid of nuclear power (science) than they are of Global Warming..

Total bullshit. First of all, nuclear is very expensive power, with a huge problem with waste. Second, in spite of all the claims of failsafe, you have Fukashima and Three Mile Island. Third, nuclear uses a lot of water, yet we cannot afford to have one shut down because of flooding or lack of water. Where are you going to put 100 plants? And who is going to pay for them? And the insurance on them.

Nuclear is as green as green can be. Cheaper than any other green source too. Safe too. Half our Navy has reactors on ships.
Remember the old saying - more Americans have died in Ted Kennedys car than in a nuclear power plant.

Your ignorance is so transparent!

List of nuclear and radiation accidents by death toll - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There have been more than 20 nuclear and radiation accidents involving fatalities. These involved nuclear power plant accidents, nuclear submarine accidents, radiotherapyaccidents and other mishaps.

4,000 fatalities[1][2] – Chernobyl disaster, Ukraine, April 26, 1986. 56 direct deaths (47 accident workers and nine children with thyroid cancer) and it is estimated that there were 4,000 extra cancer deaths among the approximately 600,000 most highly exposed people.[3]

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster has no confirmed casualties from radiation exposure, though six workers died due to various reasons, including cardiovascular disease, during the containment efforts or work to stabilize the Earthquake and Tsunami damage to the site.[9]

The Kyshtym disaster, which occurred at Mayak in the Soviet Union, was rated as a level 6 on the International Nuclear Event Scale, the third most severe incident after Chernobyl and Fukushima. Because of the intense secrecy surrounding Mayak, it is difficult to estimate the death toll of Kyshtym. One book claims that "in 1992, a study conducted by the Institute of Biophysics at the former Soviet Health Ministry in Chelyabinsk found that 8,015 people had died within the preceding 32 years as a result of the accident.

33+ cancer fatalities (estimated by UK government)[16][17] – Windscale, United Kingdom, October 8, 1957. The Windscale fire resulted whenuranium metal fuel ignited inside plutonium production piles; surrounding dairy farms were contaminated

• 17 fatalities – Instituto Oncologico Nacional of Panama, August 2000 – March 2001. Patients receiving treatment for prostate cancer and cancer of the cervix receive lethal doses of radiation.[18][19]
• 13 fatalities – Radiotherapy accident in Costa Rica, 1996. 114 patients received an overdose of radiation from a cobalt-60 source that was being used for radiotherapy.[20]
• 11 fatalities – Radiotherapy accident in Zaragoza, Spain, December 1990. Cancer patients receiving radiotherapy; 27 patients were injured.[21]
• 10 fatalities – Soviet submarine K-431 reactor accident, August 10, 1985. 49 people suffered radiation injuries.[22]
• 10 fatalities – Columbus radiotherapy accident, 1974–1976, 88 injuries from cobalt-60 source.[19][23]
• 9 fatalities – Soviet submarine K-27 reactor accident, 24 May 1968. 83 people were injured.[19]
• 8 fatalities – Soviet submarine K-19 reactor accident, July 4, 1961. More than 30 people were over-exposed to radiation.[21]
• 8 fatalities – Radiation accident in Morocco, March 1984.[24]
• 7 fatalities – Houston radiotherapy accident, 1980.[19][23]
• 5 fatalities – Lost radiation source, Baku, Azerbaijan, USSR, October 5, 1982. 13 injuries.[19]
• 4 fatalities – Mihama Nuclear Power Plant accident, August 9, 2004. Hot water and steam leaked from a broken pipe (not actually a radiation accident).[25]
• 4 fatalities – Goiânia accident, September 13, 1987. 249 people received serious radiation contamination from lost radiotherapy source.[26]
• 4 fatalities – Radiation accident in Mexico City, 1962.
• 3 fatalities – SL-1 accident (US Army) 1961.
• 3 fatalities – Samut Prakan radiation accident: Three deaths and ten injuries resulted when a radiation-therapy unit was dismantled, February 2000.[27]
• 2 fatalities – Tokaimura nuclear accident, nuclear fuel reprocessing plant. Japan, September 30, 1999.[28]
• 2 fatalities - Meet Halfa, Egypt, May 2000; two fatalities due to radiography accident.[29]
• 1 fatality – Mayapuri radiological accident, India, April 2010.[27]
• 1 fatality – Daigo Fukuryū Maru March 1, 1954
• 1 fatality – Louis Slotin May 21, 1946
• 1 fatality – Harry K. Daghlian, Jr., August 21, 1945 at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.
• 1 fatality – Cecil Kelley criticality accident, December 30, 1958 at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.[30]
• 1 fatality - Operator error at Wood River Junction nuclear facility, 1964, Rhode Island, Robert Peabody dies 49 hours later
• 1 fatality – Malfunction INES level 4 at RA2 in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 1983, operator Osvaldo Rogulich dies days later.
• 1 fatality - San Salvador, El Salvador, 1989; one fatality due to violation of safety rules at 60Co irradiation facility.[29]
• 1 fatality - Soreq, Israel, 1990; one fatality due to violation of safety rules at 60Co irradiation facility.[29]
• 1 fatality - Tammiku, Estonia, 1994; one fatality from disposed 137Cs source.[29]
• 1 fatality - Sarov, Russia, June 1997; one fatality due to violation of safety rules.[29]

OMG --- you ARE so dense. RADIOLOGY accidents? Weapons Plant accidents? What kind of anti-science trogolodyte are you??

A fishing boat violating the range safety of a 1950's US nuclear test? Grow the **** up and learn the diff between bombs, medical procedures and a nuclear power plant..

 

[flacaltenn]

Those OLD OBSOLETE plants are not gonna last much longer. Wanna ignore that problem??

Why do you want to make that same problem so much bigger?

We already know that nuclear is unsafe because nothing is infallible and you cannot afford any mistakes with nuclear power. And yes, that applies to the waste products that need to be stored for tens of thousands of years without any mistakes. That is impossible.

Wind power has sufficient potential to supply 3 times the current energy needs of the entire world. Wind power is what enabled Columbus to discover the Americas. Wind power has been grinding grains and pumping water for centuries. Wind technology has now matured into a safe, effective and environmentally friendly means of generating power.

Wind power is the future.

How many days a year do you think the wind field produces ANY significant energy? Are you that dense??

Windmills are placed where there are consistent winds blowing.

Energy Dept. Reports: U.S. Wind Energy Production and Manufacturing Reaches Record Highs

The report finds that distributed wind in the U.S. reached a 10-year cumulative installed capacity of more than 812 megawatts (MW) at the end of 2012 – representing more than 69,000 units across all 50 states. Between 2011 and 2012, U.S. distributed wind capacity grew by 175 MW, with about 80 percent of this growth coming from utility-scale installations. At the state level, Iowa, Massachusetts, California and Wisconsin led the nation in new distributed wind power capacity in 2012.

http://www.awea.org/generationrecords

And that 812MWatts of installed power PRODUCES about 280MWatts of SPORADIC power over the year.

THIS is the production chart for a well-sited DAnish off shore wind farm..

[/IMG]

Answer my question. How many days of the year does a wind farm produce no substantial energy??

How many days a year does it even NEAR it's installed capacity?

 

[Derideo_Te]

your "belief" in science has zero effect on its existence. the rest of your non sequiturs aren't worth response.

Really? The recent collapse of massive solar subsidies in Cali and reform of their harebrained "alternative" plans "aren't worth discussing"?

Weatherman is correct --- If you wanted to fix Global Warming tomorrow -- you would be building 100 new nuclear plants today.. Why isn't that happening? Because eco-leftists are MORE afraid of nuclear power (science) than they are of Global Warming..

Total bullshit. First of all, nuclear is very expensive power, with a huge problem with waste. Second, in spite of all the claims of failsafe, you have Fukashima and Three Mile Island. Third, nuclear uses a lot of water, yet we cannot afford to have one shut down because of flooding or lack of water. Where are you going to put 100 plants? And who is going to pay for them? And the insurance on them.

Nuclear is as green as green can be. Cheaper than any other green source too. Safe too. Half our Navy has reactors on ships.
Remember the old saying - more Americans have died in Ted Kennedys car than in a nuclear power plant.

Your ignorance is so transparent!

List of nuclear and radiation accidents by death toll - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There have been more than 20 nuclear and radiation accidents involving fatalities. These involved nuclear power plant accidents, nuclear submarine accidents, radiotherapyaccidents and other mishaps.

4,000 fatalities[1][2] – Chernobyl disaster, Ukraine, April 26, 1986. 56 direct deaths (47 accident workers and nine children with thyroid cancer) and it is estimated that there were 4,000 extra cancer deaths among the approximately 600,000 most highly exposed people.[3]

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster has no confirmed casualties from radiation exposure, though six workers died due to various reasons, including cardiovascular disease, during the containment efforts or work to stabilize the Earthquake and Tsunami damage to the site.[9]

The Kyshtym disaster, which occurred at Mayak in the Soviet Union, was rated as a level 6 on the International Nuclear Event Scale, the third most severe incident after Chernobyl and Fukushima. Because of the intense secrecy surrounding Mayak, it is difficult to estimate the death toll of Kyshtym. One book claims that "in 1992, a study conducted by the Institute of Biophysics at the former Soviet Health Ministry in Chelyabinsk found that 8,015 people had died within the preceding 32 years as a result of the accident.

33+ cancer fatalities (estimated by UK government)[16][17] – Windscale, United Kingdom, October 8, 1957. The Windscale fire resulted whenuranium metal fuel ignited inside plutonium production piles; surrounding dairy farms were contaminated

• 17 fatalities – Instituto Oncologico Nacional of Panama, August 2000 – March 2001. Patients receiving treatment for prostate cancer and cancer of the cervix receive lethal doses of radiation.[18][19]
• 13 fatalities – Radiotherapy accident in Costa Rica, 1996. 114 patients received an overdose of radiation from a cobalt-60 source that was being used for radiotherapy.[20]
• 11 fatalities – Radiotherapy accident in Zaragoza, Spain, December 1990. Cancer patients receiving radiotherapy; 27 patients were injured.[21]
• 10 fatalities – Soviet submarine K-431 reactor accident, August 10, 1985. 49 people suffered radiation injuries.[22]
• 10 fatalities – Columbus radiotherapy accident, 1974–1976, 88 injuries from cobalt-60 source.[19][23]
• 9 fatalities – Soviet submarine K-27 reactor accident, 24 May 1968. 83 people were injured.[19]
• 8 fatalities – Soviet submarine K-19 reactor accident, July 4, 1961. More than 30 people were over-exposed to radiation.[21]
• 8 fatalities – Radiation accident in Morocco, March 1984.[24]
• 7 fatalities – Houston radiotherapy accident, 1980.[19][23]
• 5 fatalities – Lost radiation source, Baku, Azerbaijan, USSR, October 5, 1982. 13 injuries.[19]
• 4 fatalities – Mihama Nuclear Power Plant accident, August 9, 2004. Hot water and steam leaked from a broken pipe (not actually a radiation accident).[25]
• 4 fatalities – Goiânia accident, September 13, 1987. 249 people received serious radiation contamination from lost radiotherapy source.[26]
• 4 fatalities – Radiation accident in Mexico City, 1962.
• 3 fatalities – SL-1 accident (US Army) 1961.
• 3 fatalities – Samut Prakan radiation accident: Three deaths and ten injuries resulted when a radiation-therapy unit was dismantled, February 2000.[27]
• 2 fatalities – Tokaimura nuclear accident, nuclear fuel reprocessing plant. Japan, September 30, 1999.[28]
• 2 fatalities - Meet Halfa, Egypt, May 2000; two fatalities due to radiography accident.[29]
• 1 fatality – Mayapuri radiological accident, India, April 2010.[27]
• 1 fatality – Daigo Fukuryū Maru March 1, 1954
• 1 fatality – Louis Slotin May 21, 1946
• 1 fatality – Harry K. Daghlian, Jr., August 21, 1945 at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.
• 1 fatality – Cecil Kelley criticality accident, December 30, 1958 at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.[30]
• 1 fatality - Operator error at Wood River Junction nuclear facility, 1964, Rhode Island, Robert Peabody dies 49 hours later
• 1 fatality – Malfunction INES level 4 at RA2 in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 1983, operator Osvaldo Rogulich dies days later.
• 1 fatality - San Salvador, El Salvador, 1989; one fatality due to violation of safety rules at 60Co irradiation facility.[29]
• 1 fatality - Soreq, Israel, 1990; one fatality due to violation of safety rules at 60Co irradiation facility.[29]
• 1 fatality - Tammiku, Estonia, 1994; one fatality from disposed 137Cs source.[29]
• 1 fatality - Sarov, Russia, June 1997; one fatality due to violation of safety rules.[29]

OMG --- you ARE so dense. RADIOLOGY accidents? Weapons Plant accidents? What kind of anti-science trogolodyte are you??

A fishing boat violating the range safety of a 1950's US nuclear test? Grow the **** up and learn the diff between bombs, medical procedures and a nuclear power plant..

Irrefutable facts about the long list of nuclear accidents make you uncomfortable?

 

[flacaltenn]

Really? The recent collapse of massive solar subsidies in Cali and reform of their harebrained "alternative" plans "aren't worth discussing"?

Weatherman is correct --- If you wanted to fix Global Warming tomorrow -- you would be building 100 new nuclear plants today.. Why isn't that happening? Because eco-leftists are MORE afraid of nuclear power (science) than they are of Global Warming..

Total bullshit. First of all, nuclear is very expensive power, with a huge problem with waste. Second, in spite of all the claims of failsafe, you have Fukashima and Three Mile Island. Third, nuclear uses a lot of water, yet we cannot afford to have one shut down because of flooding or lack of water. Where are you going to put 100 plants? And who is going to pay for them? And the insurance on them.

Nuclear is as green as green can be. Cheaper than any other green source too. Safe too. Half our Navy has reactors on ships.
Remember the old saying - more Americans have died in Ted Kennedys car than in a nuclear power plant.

Your ignorance is so transparent!

List of nuclear and radiation accidents by death toll - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There have been more than 20 nuclear and radiation accidents involving fatalities. These involved nuclear power plant accidents, nuclear submarine accidents, radiotherapyaccidents and other mishaps.

4,000 fatalities[1][2] – Chernobyl disaster, Ukraine, April 26, 1986. 56 direct deaths (47 accident workers and nine children with thyroid cancer) and it is estimated that there were 4,000 extra cancer deaths among the approximately 600,000 most highly exposed people.[3]

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster has no confirmed casualties from radiation exposure, though six workers died due to various reasons, including cardiovascular disease, during the containment efforts or work to stabilize the Earthquake and Tsunami damage to the site.[9]

The Kyshtym disaster, which occurred at Mayak in the Soviet Union, was rated as a level 6 on the International Nuclear Event Scale, the third most severe incident after Chernobyl and Fukushima. Because of the intense secrecy surrounding Mayak, it is difficult to estimate the death toll of Kyshtym. One book claims that "in 1992, a study conducted by the Institute of Biophysics at the former Soviet Health Ministry in Chelyabinsk found that 8,015 people had died within the preceding 32 years as a result of the accident.

33+ cancer fatalities (estimated by UK government)[16][17] – Windscale, United Kingdom, October 8, 1957. The Windscale fire resulted whenuranium metal fuel ignited inside plutonium production piles; surrounding dairy farms were contaminated

• 17 fatalities – Instituto Oncologico Nacional of Panama, August 2000 – March 2001. Patients receiving treatment for prostate cancer and cancer of the cervix receive lethal doses of radiation.[18][19]
• 13 fatalities – Radiotherapy accident in Costa Rica, 1996. 114 patients received an overdose of radiation from a cobalt-60 source that was being used for radiotherapy.[20]
• 11 fatalities – Radiotherapy accident in Zaragoza, Spain, December 1990. Cancer patients receiving radiotherapy; 27 patients were injured.[21]
• 10 fatalities – Soviet submarine K-431 reactor accident, August 10, 1985. 49 people suffered radiation injuries.[22]
• 10 fatalities – Columbus radiotherapy accident, 1974–1976, 88 injuries from cobalt-60 source.[19][23]
• 9 fatalities – Soviet submarine K-27 reactor accident, 24 May 1968. 83 people were injured.[19]
• 8 fatalities – Soviet submarine K-19 reactor accident, July 4, 1961. More than 30 people were over-exposed to radiation.[21]
• 8 fatalities – Radiation accident in Morocco, March 1984.[24]
• 7 fatalities – Houston radiotherapy accident, 1980.[19][23]
• 5 fatalities – Lost radiation source, Baku, Azerbaijan, USSR, October 5, 1982. 13 injuries.[19]
• 4 fatalities – Mihama Nuclear Power Plant accident, August 9, 2004. Hot water and steam leaked from a broken pipe (not actually a radiation accident).[25]
• 4 fatalities – Goiânia accident, September 13, 1987. 249 people received serious radiation contamination from lost radiotherapy source.[26]
• 4 fatalities – Radiation accident in Mexico City, 1962.
• 3 fatalities – SL-1 accident (US Army) 1961.
• 3 fatalities – Samut Prakan radiation accident: Three deaths and ten injuries resulted when a radiation-therapy unit was dismantled, February 2000.[27]
• 2 fatalities – Tokaimura nuclear accident, nuclear fuel reprocessing plant. Japan, September 30, 1999.[28]
• 2 fatalities - Meet Halfa, Egypt, May 2000; two fatalities due to radiography accident.[29]
• 1 fatality – Mayapuri radiological accident, India, April 2010.[27]
• 1 fatality – Daigo Fukuryū Maru March 1, 1954
• 1 fatality – Louis Slotin May 21, 1946
• 1 fatality – Harry K. Daghlian, Jr., August 21, 1945 at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.
• 1 fatality – Cecil Kelley criticality accident, December 30, 1958 at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.[30]
• 1 fatality - Operator error at Wood River Junction nuclear facility, 1964, Rhode Island, Robert Peabody dies 49 hours later
• 1 fatality – Malfunction INES level 4 at RA2 in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 1983, operator Osvaldo Rogulich dies days later.
• 1 fatality - San Salvador, El Salvador, 1989; one fatality due to violation of safety rules at 60Co irradiation facility.[29]
• 1 fatality - Soreq, Israel, 1990; one fatality due to violation of safety rules at 60Co irradiation facility.[29]
• 1 fatality - Tammiku, Estonia, 1994; one fatality from disposed 137Cs source.[29]
• 1 fatality - Sarov, Russia, June 1997; one fatality due to violation of safety rules.[29]

OMG --- you ARE so dense. RADIOLOGY accidents? Weapons Plant accidents? What kind of anti-science trogolodyte are you??

A fishing boat violating the range safety of a 1950's US nuclear test? Grow the **** up and learn the diff between bombs, medical procedures and a nuclear power plant..

Irrefutable facts about the long list of nuclear accidents make you uncomfortable?

No -- the fact that you can't tell a prostate procedure from an atomic weapons test or nuclear power plant -- makes me VERY uncomfortable.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Those OLD OBSOLETE plants are not gonna last much longer. Wanna ignore that problem??

Why do you want to make that same problem so much bigger?

We already know that nuclear is unsafe because nothing is infallible and you cannot afford any mistakes with nuclear power. And yes, that applies to the waste products that need to be stored for tens of thousands of years without any mistakes. That is impossible.

Wind power has sufficient potential to supply 3 times the current energy needs of the entire world. Wind power is what enabled Columbus to discover the Americas. Wind power has been grinding grains and pumping water for centuries. Wind technology has now matured into a safe, effective and environmentally friendly means of generating power.

Wind power is the future.

How many days a year do you think the wind field produces ANY significant energy? Are you that dense??

Windmills are placed where there are consistent winds blowing.

Energy Dept. Reports: U.S. Wind Energy Production and Manufacturing Reaches Record Highs

The report finds that distributed wind in the U.S. reached a 10-year cumulative installed capacity of more than 812 megawatts (MW) at the end of 2012 – representing more than 69,000 units across all 50 states. Between 2011 and 2012, U.S. distributed wind capacity grew by 175 MW, with about 80 percent of this growth coming from utility-scale installations. At the state level, Iowa, Massachusetts, California and Wisconsin led the nation in new distributed wind power capacity in 2012.

http://www.awea.org/generationrecords

And that 812MWatts of installed power PRODUCES about 280MWatts of SPORADIC power over the year.

THIS is the production chart for a well-sited DAnish off shore wind farm..

[/IMG]

Answer my question. How many days of the year does a wind farm produce no substantial energy??

How many days a year does it even NEAR it's installed capacity?

There is no direct comparison in production capacities so that is a false premise.

The concept of distributed wind energy is based upon the fact that the wind is always blowing somewhere.

Similar concept to having a global market for food production. In winter you can still find fresh fruit and vegetables in your local supermarket. Same applies to wind power. The grid makes it possible to provide energy to you even when there is no local wind.

That is the realistic comparison to use.

 

[flacaltenn]

Those OLD OBSOLETE plants are not gonna last much longer. Wanna ignore that problem??

Why do you want to make that same problem so much bigger?

We already know that nuclear is unsafe because nothing is infallible and you cannot afford any mistakes with nuclear power. And yes, that applies to the waste products that need to be stored for tens of thousands of years without any mistakes. That is impossible.

Wind power has sufficient potential to supply 3 times the current energy needs of the entire world. Wind power is what enabled Columbus to discover the Americas. Wind power has been grinding grains and pumping water for centuries. Wind technology has now matured into a safe, effective and environmentally friendly means of generating power.

Wind power is the future.

How many days a year do you think the wind field produces ANY significant energy? Are you that dense??

Windmills are placed where there are consistent winds blowing.

Energy Dept. Reports: U.S. Wind Energy Production and Manufacturing Reaches Record Highs

The report finds that distributed wind in the U.S. reached a 10-year cumulative installed capacity of more than 812 megawatts (MW) at the end of 2012 – representing more than 69,000 units across all 50 states. Between 2011 and 2012, U.S. distributed wind capacity grew by 175 MW, with about 80 percent of this growth coming from utility-scale installations. At the state level, Iowa, Massachusetts, California and Wisconsin led the nation in new distributed wind power capacity in 2012.

http://www.awea.org/generationrecords

And that 812MWatts of installed power PRODUCES about 280MWatts of SPORADIC power over the year.

THIS is the production chart for a well-sited DAnish off shore wind farm..

[/IMG]

Answer my question. How many days of the year does a wind farm produce no substantial energy??

How many days a year does it even NEAR it's installed capacity?

There is no direct comparison in production capacities so that is a false premise.

The concept of distributed wind energy is based upon the fact that the wind is always blowing somewhere.

Similar concept to having a global market for food production. In winter you can still find fresh fruit and vegetables in your local supermarket. Same applies to wind power. The grid makes it possible to provide energy to you even when there is no local wind.

That is the realistic comparison to use.

And the sun is always shining somewhere, except where your head is usually located. Kumbaiya ...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Checked into solar power here in California, 100% Democrat controlled:
No financial incentive offered.
Net metering ends soon.
You can only build enough solar to meet your demand, no more.
Legislation is currently in progress to tax solar users because "they don't pay their fair share"

You see hundreds of private jets fly into climate change conferences, mansions heated and cooled by the doomsayers, etc etc.
Like I said, when leftards start acting like its a crisis I will start listening.

your "belief" in science has zero effect on its existence. the rest of your non sequiturs aren't worth response.

Really? The recent collapse of massive solar subsidies in Cali and reform of their harebrained "alternative" plans "aren't worth discussing"?

Weatherman is correct --- If you wanted to fix Global Warming tomorrow -- you would be building 100 new nuclear plants today.. Why isn't that happening? Because eco-leftists are MORE afraid of nuclear power (science) than they are of Global Warming..

Total bullshit. First of all, nuclear is very expensive power, with a huge problem with waste. Second, in spite of all the claims of failsafe, you have Fukashima and Three Mile Island. Third, nuclear uses a lot of water, yet we cannot afford to have one shut down because of flooding or lack of water. Where are you going to put 100 plants? And who is going to pay for them? And the insurance on them.

The only problem with nuclear waste is political. It's the only technology that will power your home for a year with just 0.7 ounce of solid containable waste. Waste that IS capable of being recycled and used again..

Save it captain.. It's the get of GW free card you've been looking for..

At one time we had a repository for this type of waste and companies who would have gladly recycled it.. But alas a democrat fool stopped it by the name of Harry Reid and other left wing hypocrites...

 

[flacaltenn]

Checked into solar power here in California, 100% Democrat controlled:
No financial incentive offered.
Net metering ends soon.
You can only build enough solar to meet your demand, no more.
Legislation is currently in progress to tax solar users because "they don't pay their fair share"

You see hundreds of private jets fly into climate change conferences, mansions heated and cooled by the doomsayers, etc etc.
Like I said, when leftards start acting like its a crisis I will start listening.

your "belief" in science has zero effect on its existence. the rest of your non sequiturs aren't worth response.

Really? The recent collapse of massive solar subsidies in Cali and reform of their harebrained "alternative" plans "aren't worth discussing"?

Weatherman is correct --- If you wanted to fix Global Warming tomorrow -- you would be building 100 new nuclear plants today.. Why isn't that happening? Because eco-leftists are MORE afraid of nuclear power (science) than they are of Global Warming..

Total bullshit. First of all, nuclear is very expensive power, with a huge problem with waste. Second, in spite of all the claims of failsafe, you have Fukashima and Three Mile Island. Third, nuclear uses a lot of water, yet we cannot afford to have one shut down because of flooding or lack of water. Where are you going to put 100 plants? And who is going to pay for them? And the insurance on them.

The only problem with nuclear waste is political. It's the only technology that will power your home for a year with just 0.7 ounce of solid containable waste. Waste that IS capable of being recycled and used again..

Save it captain.. It's the get of GW free card you've been looking for..

At one time we had a repository for this type of waste and companies who would have gladly recycled it.. But alas a democrat fool stopped it by the name of Harry Reid and other left wing hypocrites...

Not to mention the LARGEST nuclear polluter on the PLANET is the United States of our Government. Hanford, Savannah River, Oak Ridge. Rotting BARRELS of waste with no where to go. HARRY the Reid needed that waste site more than the nuclear industry did..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Those OLD OBSOLETE plants are not gonna last much longer. Wanna ignore that problem??

Why do you want to make that same problem so much bigger?

We already know that nuclear is unsafe because nothing is infallible and you cannot afford any mistakes with nuclear power. And yes, that applies to the waste products that need to be stored for tens of thousands of years without any mistakes. That is impossible.

Wind power has sufficient potential to supply 3 times the current energy needs of the entire world. Wind power is what enabled Columbus to discover the Americas. Wind power has been grinding grains and pumping water for centuries. Wind technology has now matured into a safe, effective and environmentally friendly means of generating power.

Wind power is the future.

Wind power is unreliable and crap.. High maintenance cost and it disrupts global circulation of near surface winds changing climates of huge areas not to mention the wild life it kills.. You really are an idiot...

ETA: Wind is only viable for about 3-5 hours a day, even in the higher wind zones. Once the sun goes down the wind all but stops. I live near 16 massive wind projects on the great divide and as a meteorologist I can tell you they are down for 75% of the day because there is insufficient wind to turn them.

IF a wind farm is rated at 100 megawatts, it means the power generating capacity if the wind blows 24 hours a day. Now lets apply the fact that they turn for 3-5 hours of a day. Hell, ill give you one more freebie and call it six. That means the wind power output potential is only 25 megawatts. Now we find out that the wind stops and starts and is never constant in pressure (it is always varying.) We loose another 65% of potential. 65% 0f 25% leaves about 17 Megawatts of power that this field is rated for. Now we have to fire up a Coal or NG plant to take up the slack when the winds slow or stop during the time those turbines are in use. Those plants must be running at capacity to take the load so we are burning the same amount of fuel despite those pieces of crap wind mills... And then we tax the hell out of the Fossil fuel plants to pay for this stupidity. Wind power isn't shit...

Then again wind power is huge pile of shit!

 

[Derideo_Te]

Why do you want to make that same problem so much bigger?

We already know that nuclear is unsafe because nothing is infallible and you cannot afford any mistakes with nuclear power. And yes, that applies to the waste products that need to be stored for tens of thousands of years without any mistakes. That is impossible.

Wind power has sufficient potential to supply 3 times the current energy needs of the entire world. Wind power is what enabled Columbus to discover the Americas. Wind power has been grinding grains and pumping water for centuries. Wind technology has now matured into a safe, effective and environmentally friendly means of generating power.

Wind power is the future.

How many days a year do you think the wind field produces ANY significant energy? Are you that dense??

Windmills are placed where there are consistent winds blowing.

Energy Dept. Reports: U.S. Wind Energy Production and Manufacturing Reaches Record Highs

The report finds that distributed wind in the U.S. reached a 10-year cumulative installed capacity of more than 812 megawatts (MW) at the end of 2012 – representing more than 69,000 units across all 50 states. Between 2011 and 2012, U.S. distributed wind capacity grew by 175 MW, with about 80 percent of this growth coming from utility-scale installations. At the state level, Iowa, Massachusetts, California and Wisconsin led the nation in new distributed wind power capacity in 2012.

http://www.awea.org/generationrecords

And that 812MWatts of installed power PRODUCES about 280MWatts of SPORADIC power over the year.

THIS is the production chart for a well-sited DAnish off shore wind farm..

[/IMG]

Answer my question. How many days of the year does a wind farm produce no substantial energy??

How many days a year does it even NEAR it's installed capacity?

There is no direct comparison in production capacities so that is a false premise.

The concept of distributed wind energy is based upon the fact that the wind is always blowing somewhere.

Similar concept to having a global market for food production. In winter you can still find fresh fruit and vegetables in your local supermarket. Same applies to wind power. The grid makes it possible to provide energy to you even when there is no local wind.

That is the realistic comparison to use.

And the sun is always shining somewhere, except where your head is usually located. Kumbaiya ...

Predictable response when faced with irrefutable facts!

 

[Derideo_Te]

your "belief" in science has zero effect on its existence. the rest of your non sequiturs aren't worth response.

Really? The recent collapse of massive solar subsidies in Cali and reform of their harebrained "alternative" plans "aren't worth discussing"?

Weatherman is correct --- If you wanted to fix Global Warming tomorrow -- you would be building 100 new nuclear plants today.. Why isn't that happening? Because eco-leftists are MORE afraid of nuclear power (science) than they are of Global Warming..

Total bullshit. First of all, nuclear is very expensive power, with a huge problem with waste. Second, in spite of all the claims of failsafe, you have Fukashima and Three Mile Island. Third, nuclear uses a lot of water, yet we cannot afford to have one shut down because of flooding or lack of water. Where are you going to put 100 plants? And who is going to pay for them? And the insurance on them.

The only problem with nuclear waste is political. It's the only technology that will power your home for a year with just 0.7 ounce of solid containable waste. Waste that IS capable of being recycled and used again..

Save it captain.. It's the get of GW free card you've been looking for..

At one time we had a repository for this type of waste and companies who would have gladly recycled it.. But alas a democrat fool stopped it by the name of Harry Reid and other left wing hypocrites...

Not to mention the LARGEST nuclear polluter on the PLANET is the United States of our Government. Hanford, Savannah River, Oak Ridge. Rotting BARRELS of waste with no where to go. HARRY the Reid needed that waste site more than the nuclear industry did..

Thank you for conceding that nuclear waste is a major problem.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Those OLD OBSOLETE plants are not gonna last much longer. Wanna ignore that problem??

Why do you want to make that same problem so much bigger?

We already know that nuclear is unsafe because nothing is infallible and you cannot afford any mistakes with nuclear power. And yes, that applies to the waste products that need to be stored for tens of thousands of years without any mistakes. That is impossible.

Wind power has sufficient potential to supply 3 times the current energy needs of the entire world. Wind power is what enabled Columbus to discover the Americas. Wind power has been grinding grains and pumping water for centuries. Wind technology has now matured into a safe, effective and environmentally friendly means of generating power.

Wind power is the future.

Wind power is unreliable and crap.. High maintenance cost and it disrupts global circulation of near surface winds changing climates of huge areas not to mention the wild life it kills.. You really are an idiot...

ETA: Wind is only viable for about 3-5 hours a day, even in the higher wind zones. Once the sun goes down the wind all but stops. I live near 16 massive wind projects on the great divide and as a meteorologist I can tell you they are down for 75% of the day because there is insufficient wind to turn them.

IF a wind farm is rated at 100 megawatts, it means the power generating capacity if the wind blows 24 hours a day. Now lets apply the fact that they turn for 3-5 hours of a day. Hell, ill give you one more freebie and call it six. That means the wind power output potential is only 25 megawatts. Now we find out that the wind stops and starts and is never constant in pressure (it is always varying.) We loose another 65% of potential. 65% 0f 25% leaves about 17 Megawatts of power that this field is rated for. Now we have to fire up a Coal or NG plant to take up the slack when the winds slow or stop during the time those turbines are in use. Those plants must be running at capacity to take the load so we are burning the same amount of fuel despite those pieces of crap wind mills... And then we tax the hell out of the Fossil fuel plants to pay for this stupidity. Wind power isn't shit...

Then again wind power is huge pile of shit!

Comparative electrical generation costs - SourceWatch

Comparative electrical generation costs


Comparative costs data: Lazard analysis (February 2009)
The investment banking company Lazard Ltd. released the following comparison among generation technologies, in 2008 dollars. The levelized costs include production tax credits, investment tax credits, and accelerated asset depreciation as applicable. Assumes 20-year economic life, 40% tax rate, and 5-20 year tax life. Assumptions for alternative technologies include: 30% debt at 8% interest rate, 40% tax equity at 8.5% costs and 30% common equity at 12% cost. Assumptions for conventional generation technologies: 60% debt at 8.0% interest rate and 40% equity at 12% cost. Assumes coal price of $2.50 per MMBtu and natural gas price of $8.00 per MMBtu. 12% cost, 20-year economic life, 40% tax rate, 5-20 year tax life, coal at $2.50 per million Btu, and natural gas at $8.00 per million Bt.[2]

Coal/Nuclear/Gas: (cents per kilowatt-hour in 2008 dollars)

• Gas peaking: 22.5 - 34.2 (assumes $8.00/MMBtu for gas)
• IGCC: 11.0 - 14.1 (assumes $2.50/MMBtu for coal)
• Nuclear: 10.7 - 13.8
• Advanced supercritical coal: 7.8 - 14.4 (high end includes 90% carbon capture and storage) (assumes $2.50/MMBtu for coal)
• Gas combined cycle: 7.4 - 10.2 (assumes $8.00/MMBtu for gas)

Alternatives: (cents per kilowatt-hour in 2008 dollars)

• Solar PV (crystalline): 16.0 - 19.6
• Fuel cell: 12.7 - 15.0
• Solar PV (thin film): 13.1 - 18.2
• Solar thermal: 12.9 - 20.6 (low end is solar tower; high end is solar trough)
• Biomass direct: 6.5 - 11.3
• Wind: 5.7 - 11.3
• Geothermal: 5.8 - 9.3
• Energy efficiency: 0.0 - 5.0

 

[jon_berzerk]

Checked into solar power here in California, 100% Democrat controlled:
No financial incentive offered.
Net metering ends soon.
You can only build enough solar to meet your demand, no more.
Legislation is currently in progress to tax solar users because "they don't pay their fair share"

You see hundreds of private jets fly into climate change conferences, mansions heated and cooled by the doomsayers, etc etc.
Like I said, when leftards start acting like its a crisis I will start listening.[/QUOT

man made global warming = junk science

Hey Jon, hope all is well. Doing fine here.

good glad to hear that

 

[Billy_Bob]

Those OLD OBSOLETE plants are not gonna last much longer. Wanna ignore that problem??

Why do you want to make that same problem so much bigger?

We already know that nuclear is unsafe because nothing is infallible and you cannot afford any mistakes with nuclear power. And yes, that applies to the waste products that need to be stored for tens of thousands of years without any mistakes. That is impossible.

Wind power has sufficient potential to supply 3 times the current energy needs of the entire world. Wind power is what enabled Columbus to discover the Americas. Wind power has been grinding grains and pumping water for centuries. Wind technology has now matured into a safe, effective and environmentally friendly means of generating power.

Wind power is the future.

Wind power is unreliable and crap.. High maintenance cost and it disrupts global circulation of near surface winds changing climates of huge areas not to mention the wild life it kills.. You really are an idiot...

ETA: Wind is only viable for about 3-5 hours a day, even in the higher wind zones. Once the sun goes down the wind all but stops. I live near 16 massive wind projects on the great divide and as a meteorologist I can tell you they are down for 75% of the day because there is insufficient wind to turn them.

IF a wind farm is rated at 100 megawatts, it means the power generating capacity if the wind blows 24 hours a day. Now lets apply the fact that they turn for 3-5 hours of a day. Hell, ill give you one more freebie and call it six. That means the wind power output potential is only 25 megawatts. Now we find out that the wind stops and starts and is never constant in pressure (it is always varying.) We loose another 65% of potential. 65% 0f 25% leaves about 17 Megawatts of power that this field is rated for. Now we have to fire up a Coal or NG plant to take up the slack when the winds slow or stop during the time those turbines are in use. Those plants must be running at capacity to take the load so we are burning the same amount of fuel despite those pieces of crap wind mills... And then we tax the hell out of the Fossil fuel plants to pay for this stupidity. Wind power isn't shit...

Then again wind power is huge pile of shit!

Comparative electrical generation costs - SourceWatch

Comparative electrical generation costs


Comparative costs data: Lazard analysis (February 2009)
The investment banking company Lazard Ltd. released the following comparison among generation technologies, in 2008 dollars. The levelized costs include production tax credits, investment tax credits, and accelerated asset depreciation as applicable. Assumes 20-year economic life, 40% tax rate, and 5-20 year tax life. Assumptions for alternative technologies include: 30% debt at 8% interest rate, 40% tax equity at 8.5% costs and 30% common equity at 12% cost. Assumptions for conventional generation technologies: 60% debt at 8.0% interest rate and 40% equity at 12% cost. Assumes coal price of $2.50 per MMBtu and natural gas price of $8.00 per MMBtu. 12% cost, 20-year economic life, 40% tax rate, 5-20 year tax life, coal at $2.50 per million Btu, and natural gas at $8.00 per million Bt.[2]

Coal/Nuclear/Gas: (cents per kilowatt-hour in 2008 dollars)

• Gas peaking: 22.5 - 34.2 (assumes $8.00/MMBtu for gas)
• IGCC: 11.0 - 14.1 (assumes $2.50/MMBtu for coal)
• Nuclear: 10.7 - 13.8
• Advanced supercritical coal: 7.8 - 14.4 (high end includes 90% carbon capture and storage) (assumes $2.50/MMBtu for coal)
• Gas combined cycle: 7.4 - 10.2 (assumes $8.00/MMBtu for gas)

Alternatives: (cents per kilowatt-hour in 2008 dollars)

• Solar PV (crystalline): 16.0 - 19.6
• Fuel cell: 12.7 - 15.0
• Solar PV (thin film): 13.1 - 18.2
• Solar thermal: 12.9 - 20.6 (low end is solar tower; high end is solar trough)
• Biomass direct: 6.5 - 11.3
• Wind: 5.7 - 11.3
• Geothermal: 5.8 - 9.3
• Energy efficiency: 0.0 - 5.0

Too funny... you include the subsidies that alternatives are receiving but then you place the theft of funds from fossil fuels as a cost to do buisness... your redistribution from reliable fuels to alternative crap is hiding the truth.

Gawd you fools are so predictable..

 

[flacaltenn]

Those OLD OBSOLETE plants are not gonna last much longer. Wanna ignore that problem??

Why do you want to make that same problem so much bigger?

We already know that nuclear is unsafe because nothing is infallible and you cannot afford any mistakes with nuclear power. And yes, that applies to the waste products that need to be stored for tens of thousands of years without any mistakes. That is impossible.

Wind power has sufficient potential to supply 3 times the current energy needs of the entire world. Wind power is what enabled Columbus to discover the Americas. Wind power has been grinding grains and pumping water for centuries. Wind technology has now matured into a safe, effective and environmentally friendly means of generating power.

Wind power is the future.

Wind power is unreliable and crap.. High maintenance cost and it disrupts global circulation of near surface winds changing climates of huge areas not to mention the wild life it kills.. You really are an idiot...

ETA: Wind is only viable for about 3-5 hours a day, even in the higher wind zones. Once the sun goes down the wind all but stops. I live near 16 massive wind projects on the great divide and as a meteorologist I can tell you they are down for 75% of the day because there is insufficient wind to turn them.

IF a wind farm is rated at 100 megawatts, it means the power generating capacity if the wind blows 24 hours a day. Now lets apply the fact that they turn for 3-5 hours of a day. Hell, ill give you one more freebie and call it six. That means the wind power output potential is only 25 megawatts. Now we find out that the wind stops and starts and is never constant in pressure (it is always varying.) We loose another 65% of potential. 65% 0f 25% leaves about 17 Megawatts of power that this field is rated for. Now we have to fire up a Coal or NG plant to take up the slack when the winds slow or stop during the time those turbines are in use. Those plants must be running at capacity to take the load so we are burning the same amount of fuel despite those pieces of crap wind mills... And then we tax the hell out of the Fossil fuel plants to pay for this stupidity. Wind power isn't shit...

Then again wind power is huge pile of shit!

Comparative electrical generation costs - SourceWatch

Comparative electrical generation costs


Comparative costs data: Lazard analysis (February 2009)
The investment banking company Lazard Ltd. released the following comparison among generation technologies, in 2008 dollars. The levelized costs include production tax credits, investment tax credits, and accelerated asset depreciation as applicable. Assumes 20-year economic life, 40% tax rate, and 5-20 year tax life. Assumptions for alternative technologies include: 30% debt at 8% interest rate, 40% tax equity at 8.5% costs and 30% common equity at 12% cost. Assumptions for conventional generation technologies: 60% debt at 8.0% interest rate and 40% equity at 12% cost. Assumes coal price of $2.50 per MMBtu and natural gas price of $8.00 per MMBtu. 12% cost, 20-year economic life, 40% tax rate, 5-20 year tax life, coal at $2.50 per million Btu, and natural gas at $8.00 per million Bt.[2]

Coal/Nuclear/Gas: (cents per kilowatt-hour in 2008 dollars)

• Gas peaking: 22.5 - 34.2 (assumes $8.00/MMBtu for gas)
• IGCC: 11.0 - 14.1 (assumes $2.50/MMBtu for coal)
• Nuclear: 10.7 - 13.8
• Advanced supercritical coal: 7.8 - 14.4 (high end includes 90% carbon capture and storage) (assumes $2.50/MMBtu for coal)
• Gas combined cycle: 7.4 - 10.2 (assumes $8.00/MMBtu for gas)

Alternatives: (cents per kilowatt-hour in 2008 dollars)

• Solar PV (crystalline): 16.0 - 19.6
• Fuel cell: 12.7 - 15.0
• Solar PV (thin film): 13.1 - 18.2
• Solar thermal: 12.9 - 20.6 (low end is solar tower; high end is solar trough)
• Biomass direct: 6.5 - 11.3
• Wind: 5.7 - 11.3
• Geothermal: 5.8 - 9.3
• Energy efficiency: 0.0 - 5.0

Since we haven't BUILT a nuke plant in the US for about 30 years -- WHAT generation technology and experience did they base the pricing on?

I'll take the same position as the moron "alternatives" do ----- which is --- when you build MORE of it and establish pre-approved design templates that breeze thru approvals -- it get CHEAPER very quickly.

IN FACT --- the govt should provide some land and some grants and have a run-off on 2 or 4 different designs. Let them certify the BEST designs and give them fast track approval for building out dozens of them in 5 years.

 

[flacaltenn]

You better get your marching boots on and that handprinted protest sign out D.T.. 5 nuke plants under construction in the US.. The one is Georgia has 2 full scale reactors. Some of the others,, like the Oak Ridge one is a test of a "mid-size" self contained, recyclable reactor. Which is where my money is. I'm investing as soon as they go public.

Means you could power a town of 100,000 or so for 15 or 20 years before digging one up and replacing it.

U.S. Nuclear Power Plants - Nuclear Energy Institute

Construction (5)

Georgia Power Waynesboro, GA (Vogtle 3, 4) AP1000 2 Approved August 2009 3/31/08 5/30/08 2/10/12
South Carolina Electric & Gas Jenkinsville, SC (Summer 2, 3) AP1000 2 NA 3/27/08 7/31/08 3/30/12
Tennessee Valley Authority Spring City, TN (Watts Bar 2)* Gen II PWR 1 NA - - -
COL License Issued (1) DTE Energy Newport, MI (Fermi 3) ESBWR 1 - 9/18/08 11/25/08 5/1/15

Not your grand-daddy's nuclear plants. These actually have computers in them..

 

[Derideo_Te]

Those OLD OBSOLETE plants are not gonna last much longer. Wanna ignore that problem??

Why do you want to make that same problem so much bigger?

We already know that nuclear is unsafe because nothing is infallible and you cannot afford any mistakes with nuclear power. And yes, that applies to the waste products that need to be stored for tens of thousands of years without any mistakes. That is impossible.

Wind power has sufficient potential to supply 3 times the current energy needs of the entire world. Wind power is what enabled Columbus to discover the Americas. Wind power has been grinding grains and pumping water for centuries. Wind technology has now matured into a safe, effective and environmentally friendly means of generating power.

Wind power is the future.

Wind power is unreliable and crap.. High maintenance cost and it disrupts global circulation of near surface winds changing climates of huge areas not to mention the wild life it kills.. You really are an idiot...

ETA: Wind is only viable for about 3-5 hours a day, even in the higher wind zones. Once the sun goes down the wind all but stops. I live near 16 massive wind projects on the great divide and as a meteorologist I can tell you they are down for 75% of the day because there is insufficient wind to turn them.

IF a wind farm is rated at 100 megawatts, it means the power generating capacity if the wind blows 24 hours a day. Now lets apply the fact that they turn for 3-5 hours of a day. Hell, ill give you one more freebie and call it six. That means the wind power output potential is only 25 megawatts. Now we find out that the wind stops and starts and is never constant in pressure (it is always varying.) We loose another 65% of potential. 65% 0f 25% leaves about 17 Megawatts of power that this field is rated for. Now we have to fire up a Coal or NG plant to take up the slack when the winds slow or stop during the time those turbines are in use. Those plants must be running at capacity to take the load so we are burning the same amount of fuel despite those pieces of crap wind mills... And then we tax the hell out of the Fossil fuel plants to pay for this stupidity. Wind power isn't shit...

Then again wind power is huge pile of shit!

Comparative electrical generation costs - SourceWatch

Comparative electrical generation costs


Comparative costs data: Lazard analysis (February 2009)
The investment banking company Lazard Ltd. released the following comparison among generation technologies, in 2008 dollars. The levelized costs include production tax credits, investment tax credits, and accelerated asset depreciation as applicable. Assumes 20-year economic life, 40% tax rate, and 5-20 year tax life. Assumptions for alternative technologies include: 30% debt at 8% interest rate, 40% tax equity at 8.5% costs and 30% common equity at 12% cost. Assumptions for conventional generation technologies: 60% debt at 8.0% interest rate and 40% equity at 12% cost. Assumes coal price of $2.50 per MMBtu and natural gas price of $8.00 per MMBtu. 12% cost, 20-year economic life, 40% tax rate, 5-20 year tax life, coal at $2.50 per million Btu, and natural gas at $8.00 per million Bt.[2]

Coal/Nuclear/Gas: (cents per kilowatt-hour in 2008 dollars)

• Gas peaking: 22.5 - 34.2 (assumes $8.00/MMBtu for gas)
• IGCC: 11.0 - 14.1 (assumes $2.50/MMBtu for coal)
• Nuclear: 10.7 - 13.8
• Advanced supercritical coal: 7.8 - 14.4 (high end includes 90% carbon capture and storage) (assumes $2.50/MMBtu for coal)
• Gas combined cycle: 7.4 - 10.2 (assumes $8.00/MMBtu for gas)

Alternatives: (cents per kilowatt-hour in 2008 dollars)

• Solar PV (crystalline): 16.0 - 19.6
• Fuel cell: 12.7 - 15.0
• Solar PV (thin film): 13.1 - 18.2
• Solar thermal: 12.9 - 20.6 (low end is solar tower; high end is solar trough)
• Biomass direct: 6.5 - 11.3
• Wind: 5.7 - 11.3
• Geothermal: 5.8 - 9.3
• Energy efficiency: 0.0 - 5.0

Too funny... you include the subsidies that alternatives are receiving but then you place the theft of funds from fossil fuels as a cost to do buisness... your redistribution from reliable fuels to alternative crap is hiding the truth.

Gawd you fools are so predictable..

Please provide a credible to support your allegation.

TYIA

 

[Derideo_Te]

Those OLD OBSOLETE plants are not gonna last much longer. Wanna ignore that problem??

Why do you want to make that same problem so much bigger?

We already know that nuclear is unsafe because nothing is infallible and you cannot afford any mistakes with nuclear power. And yes, that applies to the waste products that need to be stored for tens of thousands of years without any mistakes. That is impossible.

Wind power has sufficient potential to supply 3 times the current energy needs of the entire world. Wind power is what enabled Columbus to discover the Americas. Wind power has been grinding grains and pumping water for centuries. Wind technology has now matured into a safe, effective and environmentally friendly means of generating power.

Wind power is the future.

Wind power is unreliable and crap.. High maintenance cost and it disrupts global circulation of near surface winds changing climates of huge areas not to mention the wild life it kills.. You really are an idiot...

ETA: Wind is only viable for about 3-5 hours a day, even in the higher wind zones. Once the sun goes down the wind all but stops. I live near 16 massive wind projects on the great divide and as a meteorologist I can tell you they are down for 75% of the day because there is insufficient wind to turn them.

IF a wind farm is rated at 100 megawatts, it means the power generating capacity if the wind blows 24 hours a day. Now lets apply the fact that they turn for 3-5 hours of a day. Hell, ill give you one more freebie and call it six. That means the wind power output potential is only 25 megawatts. Now we find out that the wind stops and starts and is never constant in pressure (it is always varying.) We loose another 65% of potential. 65% 0f 25% leaves about 17 Megawatts of power that this field is rated for. Now we have to fire up a Coal or NG plant to take up the slack when the winds slow or stop during the time those turbines are in use. Those plants must be running at capacity to take the load so we are burning the same amount of fuel despite those pieces of crap wind mills... And then we tax the hell out of the Fossil fuel plants to pay for this stupidity. Wind power isn't shit...

Then again wind power is huge pile of shit!

Comparative electrical generation costs - SourceWatch

Comparative electrical generation costs


Comparative costs data: Lazard analysis (February 2009)
The investment banking company Lazard Ltd. released the following comparison among generation technologies, in 2008 dollars. The levelized costs include production tax credits, investment tax credits, and accelerated asset depreciation as applicable. Assumes 20-year economic life, 40% tax rate, and 5-20 year tax life. Assumptions for alternative technologies include: 30% debt at 8% interest rate, 40% tax equity at 8.5% costs and 30% common equity at 12% cost. Assumptions for conventional generation technologies: 60% debt at 8.0% interest rate and 40% equity at 12% cost. Assumes coal price of $2.50 per MMBtu and natural gas price of $8.00 per MMBtu. 12% cost, 20-year economic life, 40% tax rate, 5-20 year tax life, coal at $2.50 per million Btu, and natural gas at $8.00 per million Bt.[2]

Coal/Nuclear/Gas: (cents per kilowatt-hour in 2008 dollars)

• Gas peaking: 22.5 - 34.2 (assumes $8.00/MMBtu for gas)
• IGCC: 11.0 - 14.1 (assumes $2.50/MMBtu for coal)
• Nuclear: 10.7 - 13.8
• Advanced supercritical coal: 7.8 - 14.4 (high end includes 90% carbon capture and storage) (assumes $2.50/MMBtu for coal)
• Gas combined cycle: 7.4 - 10.2 (assumes $8.00/MMBtu for gas)

Alternatives: (cents per kilowatt-hour in 2008 dollars)

• Solar PV (crystalline): 16.0 - 19.6
• Fuel cell: 12.7 - 15.0
• Solar PV (thin film): 13.1 - 18.2
• Solar thermal: 12.9 - 20.6 (low end is solar tower; high end is solar trough)
• Biomass direct: 6.5 - 11.3
• Wind: 5.7 - 11.3
• Geothermal: 5.8 - 9.3
• Energy efficiency: 0.0 - 5.0

Since we haven't BUILT a nuke plant in the US for about 30 years -- WHAT generation technology and experience did they base the pricing on?

I'll take the same position as the moron "alternatives" do ----- which is --- when you build MORE of it and establish pre-approved design templates that breeze thru approvals -- it get CHEAPER very quickly.

IN FACT --- the govt should provide some land and some grants and have a run-off on 2 or 4 different designs. Let them certify the BEST designs and give them fast track approval for building out dozens of them in 5 years.

First you have to get past the NIMBY problem with nuke reactors before you can even begin to try what you are proposing.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You better get your marching boots on and that handprinted protest sign out D.T.. 5 nuke plants under construction in the US.. The one is Georgia has 2 full scale reactors. Some of the others,, like the Oak Ridge one is a test of a "mid-size" self contained, recyclable reactor. Which is where my money is. I'm investing as soon as they go public.

Means you could power a town of 100,000 or so for 15 or 20 years before digging one up and replacing it.

U.S. Nuclear Power Plants - Nuclear Energy Institute

Construction (5)

Georgia Power Waynesboro, GA (Vogtle 3, 4) AP1000 2 Approved August 2009 3/31/08 5/30/08 2/10/12
South Carolina Electric & Gas Jenkinsville, SC (Summer 2, 3) AP1000 2 NA 3/27/08 7/31/08 3/30/12
Tennessee Valley Authority Spring City, TN (Watts Bar 2)* Gen II PWR 1 NA - - -
COL License Issued (1) DTE Energy Newport, MI (Fermi 3) ESBWR 1 - 9/18/08 11/25/08 5/1/15

Not your grand-daddy's nuclear plants. These actually have computers in them..

No amount of computers are going to prevent the radioactive pollution from mining and refining uranium to run those reactors.