JD_2B
Little Vixen
I think we know who the conspiracy theorist is here..
I swear.. Talks about moving towards the third world, poverty and famine, and then listing all the companies that are "in on it"?? LMAO!! Wow.. 
Wind or Nuclear?
- Thread starter Skull Pilot
- Start date
I think we know who the conspiracy theorist is here..
I swear.. Talks about moving towards the third world, poverty and famine, and then listing all the companies that are "in on it"?? LMAO!! Wow.. mdn2000
VIP Member
- Banned
- #142
Jd2b, just dumb to be,
I have seen you obsessing and stalking my posts, you must like real men, just to get your juices going I am 6' 2", 210 lbs, caucasion, middle aged, tough, mean when I need to be, albe to protect a little vixen such as yourself. You should actually read all my posts, I have used Old Crocks own sources to show the twins old crock and chrissy to be morons. Seriously, if you think my posts have fault point it out and I will respond, you dont need to chase all my posts and just be bitchy.
Moving towards the third world, can you explain. Conspiracy, so what, that is what it is, do you think conspiracys cannot exist, that is being naive.
Jd2b, my ex fiance called herself tobe. anyhow let me address an error on your part, you mistook a press release for an article.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/energy/93857-100-alternative-energy-worldwide-by-2030-a.html#post1706537
Old Crock is great at putting his foot in his mouth, you should really look at how I have exposed Old Crock. Not one person has come to Old Crock's defense but you did, in this case old crock found what is a press release by stanford university, this press release went out to thousands of donors and major newspapers. This is not an article, it just states that two professors published a study. The press release is advertising, marketing, a tool to make money for the university, That study is not availalbe, parts are but the whole study is not being released. There is a reason, the study is incomplete and contains faulty information, these two knucklehead professors have published bogus work in the past that is lacking critical facts and data.
I love old crock, he is my best freind, every source he uses is a source that proves old crock is wrong. old crock thinks there is global warming and green energy is the solution
I say okay, you can have global warming, and I than prove that there is no such thing as "green energy", I do this with the sources old crock provides. Old Crocks sources also show that so called green energy is very expensive extremely polluting and unreliable.
I have seen you obsessing and stalking my posts, you must like real men, just to get your juices going I am 6' 2", 210 lbs, caucasion, middle aged, tough, mean when I need to be, albe to protect a little vixen such as yourself. You should actually read all my posts, I have used Old Crocks own sources to show the twins old crock and chrissy to be morons. Seriously, if you think my posts have fault point it out and I will respond, you dont need to chase all my posts and just be bitchy.
Moving towards the third world, can you explain. Conspiracy, so what, that is what it is, do you think conspiracys cannot exist, that is being naive.
Jd2b, my ex fiance called herself tobe. anyhow let me address an error on your part, you mistook a press release for an article.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/energy/93857-100-alternative-energy-worldwide-by-2030-a.html#post1706537
Old Crock is great at putting his foot in his mouth, you should really look at how I have exposed Old Crock. Not one person has come to Old Crock's defense but you did, in this case old crock found what is a press release by stanford university, this press release went out to thousands of donors and major newspapers. This is not an article, it just states that two professors published a study. The press release is advertising, marketing, a tool to make money for the university, That study is not availalbe, parts are but the whole study is not being released. There is a reason, the study is incomplete and contains faulty information, these two knucklehead professors have published bogus work in the past that is lacking critical facts and data.
I love old crock, he is my best freind, every source he uses is a source that proves old crock is wrong. old crock thinks there is global warming and green energy is the solution
I say okay, you can have global warming, and I than prove that there is no such thing as "green energy", I do this with the sources old crock provides. Old Crocks sources also show that so called green energy is very expensive extremely polluting and unreliable.
Last edited:
PLYMCO_PILGRIM
Gold Member
I want to make a comment based purely off the question in the title, Wind or Nuclear?
Why not both?
.
Why not both?
.mdn2000
VIP Member
- Banned
- #144
I want to make a comment based purely off the question in the title, Wind or Nuclear?
Why not both?
Because wind is too weak of a source for power.
Because wind is extremely expensive.
Already in California, Nevada, and Arizona in the summer months electrical rates go rise to 300$ or more a month. Arnold just authorized Edison to raise rates higher, Arnold just authorized the Dept. of Water to raise the price of water by 20%.
Water uses electricity to pump the water, water uses more electricity in california than all other users combined.
Raising the price of water is solely do to the increased use of wind power.
Why not use both, because wind power is very expensive and the power output is next to nothing.
Also its not a matter of one or the other, all wind farms require a 100% back-up, in california we experience wind-farm black outs that last over a month hence every wind-farm requires 100% back up.
Wind does not put the present energy producers out of business, green energy provides a market for traditional energy, old power producers will have to supply green energy with not only 100% back-up but they will supply the power to the industry that builds green energy power plants.
Its not a choice of one or the other, its simply we are giving trillions to corporations, we are giving a new market to traditional fossil fuel.
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
Here are three sources among a very great many to back up what I posted. Note that the people at Voxtel are only claiming a possible efficiency of about 40%, whereas the people at the Golden, Colorado energy lab state that 65% is theoretically possible.
SANYO :: News :: SANYO Develops HIT Solar Cells with World’s Highest Energy Conversion Efficiency of 23.0%
May 21, 2009
Tokyo, May 22, 2009----SANYO Electric Co., Ltd. (SANYO) announced today that it has broken its own record for the worldÂ’s highest energy conversion efficiency*2 in practical size (100 cm2 or more) crystalline silicon-type solar cells, achieving a efficiency of 23.0%*3 (until now 22.3%) at a research level for its proprietary HIT*1 solar photovoltaic cells.
Beaverton firm will produce cheaper quantum dots | Oregon Business News - OregonLive.com
The high cost of quantum dots, $5,000 per gram at the low end, has been a barrier for two decades. Dots are conventionally made by a chemist one batch at a time.
Voxtel invented a continuous system that automatically pumps out dots in large quantities, and even works with materials more environmentally friendly than those before. Their target is around $10 per gram with the capacity to fabricate kilograms of dots per week from a single production line. It takes about a tenth of a gram to make a square foot solar panel.
FuturePundit: Quantum Dots May Boost Photovoltaic Efficiency To 65%
We have shown that solar cells based on quantum dots theoretically could convert more than 65 percent of the sun's energy into electricity, approximately doubling the efficiency of solar cells," Nozik said. The best cells today convert about 33 percent of the sun's energy into electricity.
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
I want to make a comment based purely off the question in the title, Wind or Nuclear?
Why not both?
No reason at all. In fact, I have advocated that. The only reason that nuclear would be in a lessor role is because it is damned expensive power compared to wind and geothermal, at present.
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
Si, read the second article on the manufacturing process for the Qdot panels. Ink jet printing.
KittenKoder
Senior Member
I want to make a comment based purely off the question in the title, Wind or Nuclear?
Why not both?
No reason at all. In fact, I have advocated that. The only reason that nuclear would be in a lessor role is because it is damned expensive power compared to wind and geothermal, at present.
Not really, the costs of nuclear have been puffed up by those who fear it mindlessly. The reality is it's cheaper than anything effective or available. Mostly because of the less space and mining operations, but also because they can now recycle the spent cells and the inert material can supplement production lines as a source for raw materials. Really, nuke is a win-win but the fear-mongers (
) just keep standing in the way.Liability
Locked Account.
The OP question is a false dichotomy.
What's wrong with a nuclear wind?
What's wrong with a nuclear wind?
mal
Diamond Member
When I have the Spicy Green @ Dos Chile Verdes...
That's EXACTLY what I get!
Peelin' Muffukin' Paint!
peace...
JD_2B
Little Vixen
You are a damned stupid sonof a bitch if you think that sustainable energy is a waste of energy to make.
That is just retarded.. Now I am sure that, by your description, you are tall, hot, and a fine good piece of ass, but still- that is just retarded.
You do realize that your claims of it costing so much energy to produce these contraptions, does not AT ALL account for the fact that the energy generated over the lifetime of say, a wind turbine, lol, will absolutely diminish the relatively meager amount of energy that it took to originally build, do you not?
Stop sucking all of the intelligence out of the discussion, and out of Old Crock's ego, and try for a minute to just think about it. MMMKAY???
A recycling plant clearly takes a massive amount of power to create. OK. Gotcha. BUT it also tremendously reduces the amount of land space that we fill up by dumping garbage out. Also, over the lifetime of a recycling center in San Diego, the landfill's methane gases are captured and reused to power 90% of the recycling plant. That alone is 10 Megawatts.
Miramar Landfill | Environmental Services
You just CANT say that these implementations of sustained energy usage is somehow harmful to the environment. It is NOT making you look hot.. its only showing us all how dumb you are.
OK Heres another example.. A miniature wind turbine can be bought for 400 dollars. It is about 36 inches tall and can light a whole house, year round, for years to come. Are you seriously going to tell me that this little "turbine baby" is impacting the environment in a negative way, now??
Get REAL. And stop calling everyone names.. and don't compare me to your ex fiance. I would have dumped your ass too.
mdn2000
VIP Member
- Banned
- #153
no it wont, windmills are a negative, period, you my little vixen, must look into what types of energy and how much of each type is required to make one ton of fiberglass. Start a google search, you will find it painfully difficult to find such a simple answer.
270 tons of fiberglass for one windmill if you look at Vespa which is the number one windmill in America. That is the weight of just the fiberglass, further when the wind does not blow an engine is required to spin the blades, thats so birds dont land on the blades, shit on the blades, and unbalance the tons and tons and tons of fiberglass, too much eagle shit destroys the balance and hence destroys the contraption.
You want to talk about intelligence in the conversation, despite our little tit for tat flames of one another, you have shown intelligence, Old Crock has not.
Imagine claiming Old Crock claiming to work in a steel foundry, stating it is pure electric, posting a source to support your claim, and that source says natural gas is used. That is pretty dumb no matter who you are.
PLYMCO_PILGRIM
Gold Member
I want to make a comment based purely off the question in the title, Wind or Nuclear?
Why not both?
No reason at all. In fact, I have advocated that. The only reason that nuclear would be in a lessor role is because it is damned expensive power compared to wind and geothermal, at present.
Finally we agree on something
Someone else was claiming wind is way too expensive but I still think we should persue both, in addition to solar power.
mdn2000
VIP Member
- Banned
- #155
I want to make a comment based purely off the question in the title, Wind or Nuclear?
Why not both?
No reason at all. In fact, I have advocated that. The only reason that nuclear would be in a lessor role is because it is damned expensive power compared to wind and geothermal, at present.
Finally we agree on something
Someone else was claiming wind is way too expensive but I still think we should persue both, in addition to solar power.
Wind is too expensive, I said that, one ton of fiberglass, how much energy and what types does it take? That is the answer, you cannot use wind power to make steel, steel needed to make windmills, so how is a windmill renewable.
The cost, when compared to nuclear power is atronomical, that is being seen across the country right now, we shut down 35 nuclear plants, some are being replaced, some being replaced by wind power, this is why electrical rates are over 300$ a month in Los Angeles, add your water bill that is direct cost of electricity and people are paying more than 400$ for electricity.
This is nothing more than Marxism, the government dictating the type of power that will be used, in Michigan the democrat governor states she will remake the industry in Michigan to be a green industry, Marxist dictate what jobs are created.
Green Energy is too expensive, the cost of everything is the price of going green, from expensive food, to lack of jobs, to education, to the cost of electricity, the high price is a direct cost of the Marxist dictating green.
One thing We rarely here talked about in reference to Alternative is, Cost of upkeep, maintenance, and repair, not to mention life expectancy. There are breakthroughs, and that is good, still We are being at best, misinformed, and at worst, out right lied to. Solar Cells for example, vary widely in value, by type. Let the buyer beware.
Andrew2382
Gold Member
- Oct 1, 2008
- 3,994
- 551
- 153
In Massachusetts, USA, the 130-turbine Cape Wind project will generate
over 400 megawatts of electricity - enough for 400,000 homes. Thats 130 wind turbines
The Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, commonly referred to as Palo Verde Power Plant is a nuclear power plant located in Tonopah, Arizona, about 45 miles (80 km) west of central Phoenix, and is currently the largest nuclear generation facility in the United States, averaging over 3.2 gigawatts (GW) of electrical power production in 2003[1] to serve approximately 4 million people. Arizona Public Service.
Currently we consume the equivalent of 19,343 billion KWh of total energy in this country (if you convert all the petroleum and natural gas to its electric energy equivalent using 2006 data). That means we need to produce 437 billion KWh of new energy each year. That is equivalent to 50 Giga Watts (GW) of new electric production capacity.
Let's put this into perspective. This is equivalent to:
* Building 50 new nuclear plants each year.
* Building 40,000 3 Mega Watt (MW) wind generators each year.
* Installing 150 GW of solar cells.
(I am assuming that wind production is 40% or max capacity and that solar cells produce power for 8 hours per day at rated capacity.)
Let's look at the cost of the three alternatives:
* Nuclear - $5 billion per plant (1 GW) = $250 billion per year
* Wind - $7.5 billion per 1 GW rated capacity = $375 billion per year
* Solar - $10.5 billion per 1 GW rated capacity = $525 billion per year
over 400 megawatts of electricity - enough for 400,000 homes. Thats 130 wind turbines
The Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, commonly referred to as Palo Verde Power Plant is a nuclear power plant located in Tonopah, Arizona, about 45 miles (80 km) west of central Phoenix, and is currently the largest nuclear generation facility in the United States, averaging over 3.2 gigawatts (GW) of electrical power production in 2003[1] to serve approximately 4 million people. Arizona Public Service.
Currently we consume the equivalent of 19,343 billion KWh of total energy in this country (if you convert all the petroleum and natural gas to its electric energy equivalent using 2006 data). That means we need to produce 437 billion KWh of new energy each year. That is equivalent to 50 Giga Watts (GW) of new electric production capacity.
Let's put this into perspective. This is equivalent to:
* Building 50 new nuclear plants each year.
* Building 40,000 3 Mega Watt (MW) wind generators each year.
* Installing 150 GW of solar cells.
(I am assuming that wind production is 40% or max capacity and that solar cells produce power for 8 hours per day at rated capacity.)
Let's look at the cost of the three alternatives:
* Nuclear - $5 billion per plant (1 GW) = $250 billion per year
* Wind - $7.5 billion per 1 GW rated capacity = $375 billion per year
* Solar - $10.5 billion per 1 GW rated capacity = $525 billion per year
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
Mdn, you dumb ass, they do not spin the blades on a windless day. The mills just set there with blades not moving.
No, Mdn, dear old asshole, I did not claim that natural gas was not used in a steel mill. Someone stated that coke had to be used to smelt steel and iron. I pointed out that almost all modern mills use electricity to smelt the steel and iron. And I work in a steel mill, not a foundry.
And windmills are doing very well for themselves. In fact, the only thing holding back the installation of more mill is the production rate of the turbines. And, of course, the present credit crunch, which is coming to an end as we post. Here in Oregon, we see many of them put in every day. The windmills will provide over 10% of our electricity in the very near future. They are, at present, supplying about 7%, up from 5.4% before July.
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
Andrew, you have brought up some good points concerning the cost of nuclear. If we could build for the prices that France and Japan builds, perhaps nuclear would be price competative. However, our experiance here in the US is that the people that have built our nuclear plants have gone far, far over budget. The article below is a good summery of what is happening at present.
From what we have done here in Oregon, your prices for wind are a bit high. However, off coast installations are significantly higher. Also, many of the present large units are 5 mw units.
Nuclear Power Education - Cost of Nuclear Power.
Construction Costs
Construction costs are very difficult to quantify but dominate the cost of Nuclear Power. The main difficulty is that third generation power plants now proposed are claimed to be both substantially cheaper and faster to construct than the second generation power plants now in operation throughout the world. The Nuclear Industry says its learned the lessons of economy-of-volume demonstrated by the French Nuclear Program, and that these will be employed for the new power plants. Westinghouse claims its Advanced PWR reactor, the AP1000, will cost USD $1400 per KW for the first reactor and fall to USD $1000 per KW for subsequent reactors. They also claim these will be ready for electricity production 3 years after first pouring concrete. A more technical description is here. Proponents of the CANDU ACR and Gas Cooled pebble bed reactors make similar or stronger claims. However the first wave of new plants in the USA are expected to cost over $3500 per KW of capacity. Additional costs increase the price even more.
The General Electric ABWR was the first third generation power plant approved. The first two ABWR's were commissioned in Japan in 1996 and 1997. These took just over 3 years to construct and were completed on budget. Their construction costs were around $2000 per KW. Two additional ABWR's are being constructed in Taiwan. However these have faced unexpected delays and are now at least 2 years behind schedule.
Meanwhile the Chinese Nuclear Power Industry has won contracts to build new plants of their own design at capital costs reported to be $1500 per KW and $1300 per KW at sites in South-East and North-East China. If completed on budget these facilities will be formidable competitors to the Western Nuclear Power Industry.
Given the history of Nuclear Plant construction in the U.S.A., the financial industry sees the construction of the new generation of reactors as a risky investment and demands a premium on capital lent for the purpose. The Energy Bill recently passed by the US Congress assumes this risk and provides production credits of 1.8 cents per KW-Hr for the first 3 years of operation. This subsidy is equivalent to what is paid to Wind Power companies and is designed to encourage new nuclear reactor construction in the USA.
If the AP1000 lives up to its promises of $1000 per KW construction cost and 3 year construction time, it will provide cheaper electricity than any other Fossil Fuel based generating facility, including Australian Coal power, even with no sequestration charges. This promise appears to have been unfulfilled. The cost of the first AP1000 is expected to be over $3500 per KW.
From what we have done here in Oregon, your prices for wind are a bit high. However, off coast installations are significantly higher. Also, many of the present large units are 5 mw units.
Nuclear Power Education - Cost of Nuclear Power.
Construction Costs
Construction costs are very difficult to quantify but dominate the cost of Nuclear Power. The main difficulty is that third generation power plants now proposed are claimed to be both substantially cheaper and faster to construct than the second generation power plants now in operation throughout the world. The Nuclear Industry says its learned the lessons of economy-of-volume demonstrated by the French Nuclear Program, and that these will be employed for the new power plants. Westinghouse claims its Advanced PWR reactor, the AP1000, will cost USD $1400 per KW for the first reactor and fall to USD $1000 per KW for subsequent reactors. They also claim these will be ready for electricity production 3 years after first pouring concrete. A more technical description is here. Proponents of the CANDU ACR and Gas Cooled pebble bed reactors make similar or stronger claims. However the first wave of new plants in the USA are expected to cost over $3500 per KW of capacity. Additional costs increase the price even more.
The General Electric ABWR was the first third generation power plant approved. The first two ABWR's were commissioned in Japan in 1996 and 1997. These took just over 3 years to construct and were completed on budget. Their construction costs were around $2000 per KW. Two additional ABWR's are being constructed in Taiwan. However these have faced unexpected delays and are now at least 2 years behind schedule.
Meanwhile the Chinese Nuclear Power Industry has won contracts to build new plants of their own design at capital costs reported to be $1500 per KW and $1300 per KW at sites in South-East and North-East China. If completed on budget these facilities will be formidable competitors to the Western Nuclear Power Industry.
Given the history of Nuclear Plant construction in the U.S.A., the financial industry sees the construction of the new generation of reactors as a risky investment and demands a premium on capital lent for the purpose. The Energy Bill recently passed by the US Congress assumes this risk and provides production credits of 1.8 cents per KW-Hr for the first 3 years of operation. This subsidy is equivalent to what is paid to Wind Power companies and is designed to encourage new nuclear reactor construction in the USA.
If the AP1000 lives up to its promises of $1000 per KW construction cost and 3 year construction time, it will provide cheaper electricity than any other Fossil Fuel based generating facility, including Australian Coal power, even with no sequestration charges. This promise appears to have been unfulfilled. The cost of the first AP1000 is expected to be over $3500 per KW.
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
Finally we agree on something
Someone else was claiming wind is way too expensive but I still think we should persue both, in addition to solar power.
Wind is too expensive, I said that, one ton of fiberglass, how much energy and what types does it take? That is the answer, you cannot use wind power to make steel, steel needed to make windmills, so how is a windmill renewable.
The cost, when compared to nuclear power is atronomical, that is being seen across the country right now, we shut down 35 nuclear plants, some are being replaced, some being replaced by wind power, this is why electrical rates are over 300$ a month in Los Angeles, add your water bill that is direct cost of electricity and people are paying more than 400$ for electricity.
This is nothing more than Marxism, the government dictating the type of power that will be used, in Michigan the democrat governor states she will remake the industry in Michigan to be a green industry, Marxist dictate what jobs are created.
Green Energy is too expensive, the cost of everything is the price of going green, from expensive food, to lack of jobs, to education, to the cost of electricity, the high price is a direct cost of the Marxist dictating green.
Electricity does not care how it is generated or to what use it is put to. So could electricity from windmills smelt steel? After all, we have already, with just the units we have on line, generated, for one hour on a particulary windy day, enough electricity from our windmill farms to supply both Seattle and Portland.
Any nuclear plants that are being shut down are being shut down for other reasons than Windmills.
And get off the Marxist kick. It makes you look even dumber.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Democrats propaganda explained in simple sentences.- Started by Robert W
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
