Would you support renewable no matter what the climate does?

[westwall]

@ westwall - In eastern Ohio/western PA/northern ByGod, reclamation does not in any way require that the mountains be put back, or that the waterways be repaired, or that trees and wildlife habitats be restored. At best, the coal companies will plant some crownvetch on the dirtpiles.

@polarbear - I mentioned Halliburton because they have their hand in a lot of Big Business energy programs and they have a strong record of failure. What you might not know is that a lot of regulations were eliminated or reduced for Halliburton and Big Oil and other energy producers during the Bush Administration. Dick Cheney owned Halliburton.


I would like to see the Grid completely updated. It's inefficient. I also strongly believe that a lot of green energy shouldn't be placed on the grid itself but used to enhance grid power coming into municipalities and private homes.

Yes, it does. The regs I quoted you are FEDERAL. ALL new coal mines (those begun after 1980) MUST follow the reconstruction programs or they lose their ass and possibly end up in prison.

The mines you see are old, the SMCRA Act of 1977 takes funds from current mine operators to clean up those old mines but there are many, many orphan holes out there and not much money to clean them up. Money that is being wasted on climate research could be used instead to clean those holes up and truly do something to benefit the planet.

 

[westwall]

No, I think you have missed the point. People want CHEAP energy. As the cost of renewables becomes apparent they abandon them and go back to fossil fueled power because it is CHEAPER. Natural gas is three times cheaper than the cheapest renewable.

so you categprically oppose coal?

No, I don't. So long as the plants use proper scrubbers to keep the particulate material down and use higher grades of coal I have no problem with it. CO2 is not a problem no matter how much you want to scream about it. CO2 is a gas essential to life on this planet. At levels below 200ppm there is no plant growth on this planet and that would be bad....very, very bad.

 

[westwall]

IF renewable energy was coddled and funded to the same extent the petrolum industry is, there'd be a hell of a lot more cheap renewable energy to buy.

Really? The petroleum industry is delivering a product that works. They spend billions generating that product and we in turn buy it in it's trillions of gallons. That's where the money comes from.

When renewables can deliver a product that isn't 3 to 4 times the cost from a comperable fossil fuel source they will take over the market.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

IF renewable energy was coddled and funded to the same extent the petrolum industry is, there'd be a hell of a lot more cheap renewable energy to buy.

They tax the hell out of oil.
If they remove the subsidies and mandates for renewables, that segment would shrink 90% overnight.

 

[Saigon]

Freedom -

Do you here anyone out there advocating a word without electricity?

No, neither do I.

You are advocating for sources that ALL are intermittent and statistically volatile.

It's the engineering stupid...

Really?

How volatile is nuclear?

Honestly, the standard of debate on this fourm sometimes beggar belief.

We have one guy saying energy is allabout price - while advocating the most espensive form of energy we have.

We have another guy saying it is all about stability - while attacking the most stable form of energy we have.

 

[Saigon]

No, I think you have missed the point. People want CHEAP energy. As the cost of renewables becomes apparent they abandon them and go back to fossil fueled power because it is CHEAPER. Natural gas is three times cheaper than the cheapest renewable.

so you categprically oppose coal?

No, I don't.

Of course you don't!!

Your claim energy is all about price - and yet you advocate about the most expensive form of energy we have.

Coal = 112
Hydro = 89.9
Onshore wind = 96.8
Gothermal = 99.6

Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This must be beause you are a scientist.

 

[Grandma]

I would like to see the Grid completely updated. It's inefficient. I also strongly believe that a lot of green energy shouldn't be placed on the grid itself but used to enhance grid power coming into municipalities and private homes.

On the point You made about how to use green energy and the power grid,...I could not agree with You more. Solar and Wind on a smaller scale for individual buildings does work and does reduce the demand on aggregate on the main grid....and that`s where the tax breaks should go to. But then again...they would be going mostly to the same kind of upper income people that Obama tries to single out as not paying their fair share.
Anyway that`s the way it played out in Germany. Only the top income earners who own Hollywood style mansions can afford to take (worth their while) advantage of that.

The government has Block Grants that could be used here for municipal and private energy devices

So why should "big Oil" not get a tax break for finding out where exactly these precious resources are located.

Because they make plenty enough money to pay for everything themselves. They absolutely do not need any extra cash from any government.

About the coal fired plant in Lawrenceville, I have to admit that I don`t know much about this particular coal fired power plant. But in Canada it is not allowed to dump the scrubber effluent in simple ponds that allow ground seepage and then drain these into a lake or a river. We hand out prison sentences for violators that do that.And this supposedly enviro-unfriendly conservative Government tightened future regulations up even tighter that they have been so far:
Canada tightens regulations on future coal-fired power plants

Estevan Saskatchewan:

Please note, that as with Your picture in the newspaper article about Lawrenceville the "smoke" is not smoke but water vapor from the cooling towers that recycle the water. As You can see from the cooling towers, the plant is up an running...please take a glance at the flue stack..!
Is that "dirty energy"...????
Lawrenceville:

Yeah, those are the cooling towers. They look awesome when a storm's rolling in and they make their own lightning. I used to watch out the window. The tall chimneys to the left are the smokestacks.

Like I said I don`t know what they are doing in Lawrenceville, but I do know what`s going on in Estevan and the other coal fired power plants in Canada...and I also do know that the laws of physics are universal and work the same in the U.S. as in Canada .
Nothing prevented President Obama to allow the same "tax breaks" he handed to Solyndra etc to the coal industry of America to bring their coal fired power plants up to international code.
At least the average factory worker or those who have to rent an apartment would benefit from it, not just people with big fancy houses...as is the case in Germany...and in Meredith NY
All Obama did is the same as what Frau Merkel did in Germany. Obama said something like..."I`ll make it so expensive for coal that it`ll go bankrupt and out of business".

He did say that. Then he changed his mind and decided to invest in "clean coal." That idea died on the House floor.


So who are the "evil" ones that should own up to their responsibilities...???
We cleaned up our coal industry in Canada not by 2 faced taxes, spin doctor political statements and $ fines which they would have simply passed on to us with proportionally inflated hydro-rates...
Had Obama been serious about the environment he would criminalize willful pollution like we did, and spent some tax $ for the technology R&D tax break assistance to clean up coal fired power plants.

I'm pretty sure that idea came up, and was shot down by the House.

... I do wish to point out that "Obama care" or public health care was first instituted by none other than Adolf Hitler and is outlined in "Mein Kampf" the book he wrote while he sat in prison in my home town Landsberg.
It was a world first...and stayed exactly as Adolf Hitler has designed it until about 15 years ago. You can find all that with Google...

It started in Germany, but with Bismark's Health Insurance Bill of 1883. England started public health care in 1911. The US is now at that early stage, but it will be a decade or more before we get universal healrth care.

But 20 years ago the German Government re-designed the German health & medi-care system and then it was structured exactly the same as Romney`s system worked in Massachusetts.

So is Obamacare.

 

[Grandma]

@ westwall - In eastern Ohio/western PA/northern ByGod, reclamation does not in any way require that the mountains be put back, or that the waterways be repaired, or that trees and wildlife habitats be restored. At best, the coal companies will plant some crownvetch on the dirtpiles.

Yes, it does. The regs I quoted you are FEDERAL. ALL new coal mines (those begun after 1980) MUST follow the reconstruction programs or they lose their ass and possibly end up in prison.

The mines you see are old, the SMCRA Act of 1977 takes funds from current mine operators to clean up those old mines but there are many, many orphan holes out there and not much money to clean them up. Money that is being wasted on climate research could be used instead to clean those holes up and truly do something to benefit the planet.

My guess is that it's cheaper and easier for them just to pay the fines - or pretend that the mines are still operating. There's no way in hell anyone will wind up in prison. They don't send corporate pigs to jail for litterin'.

 

[Grandma]

I don't like nuke joints, but I'm not ready to rule them out. I would like to see them built in remote locations, though.

 

[polarbear]

so you categprically oppose coal?

No, I don't.

Of course you don't!!

Your claim energy is all about price - and yet you advocate about the most expensive form of energy we have.

Coal = 112
Hydro = 89.9
Onshore wind = 96.8
Gothermal = 99.6

Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This must be beause you are a scientist.

Don`t include us in "we", because we are not talking about Finland which has to import coal from Russia and Poland. This wikipedia "calculation" You refer to is almost as ridiculous as the "average global temperature"

However, care should be taken in comparing different LCOE studies and the sources of the information as the LCOE for a given energy source is highly dependent on the assumptions, financing terms and technological deployment analyzed.[8] In particular, assumption of Capacity factor has significant impact on the calculation of LCOE. For example, Solar PV may have a Capacity Factor as low as 10% depending on location. Thus, a key requirement for the analysis is a clear statement of the applicability of the analysis based on justified assumptions.

As if You could throw in for example the "Shand" coal fired power plant in Estevan Saskatchewan into the some sort of average soup pot that also includes Finland and then show that coal is more expensive that nuclear...by the way where is the nuclear on the list that you posted.
Any calculation that shows "wind & solar" as cheaper than coal is outright lunacy. Besides the coal fired power plants in Canada also include this cost:

Advanced environmental design

• The LIFAC (Limestone Injection into the Furnace and re-Activation of Calcium) system, which uses powdered limestone (sorbent) and water to remove sulphur dioxide emissions
• The finely-tuned burner temperature and air quantity reduces nitrogen oxide formations by up to 50 per cent. Nitrogen oxide contributes to acid rain and smog
• A closed-loop, zero-discharge water management system ensures the water used will not be discharged into the environment, except through evaporation
• A high-efficiency electro-static precipitator (ESP), which acts as a giant dust collector to trap over 99 per cent of the fly ash before it leaves the power station's stack
• A state-of-the-art computer control system that ensures the station runs as efficiently as possible

Clean coal project on schedule | Local News | Estevan Lifestyles, Estevan, Saskatchewan

A large crowd at the Estevan Chamber of Commerce's monthly meeting on April 11 learned more about the carbon capture and storage project that is under construction at the Boundary Dam Power Station.

Natural gas prices can be volatile, Nixon said, and that's part of the reason why SaskPower is investing in clean coal as a means to reduce greenhouse gases. The start-up and the capital costs for a clean coal plant are much higher than for a natural gas plant, but the expenses associated with clean coal, once the plant is operating, will be lower than natural gas, and coal won't suffer from price fluctuations like natural gas does.

See how non-sensical Your (and Wiki`s"..."cost calculation" is. None of the real life variables are included...and are You now saying that the extra cost to clean up coal fired power plants should disqualify them as as an energy source.???????
I thought You cared about the environment..
And by the way Canadian taxpayers are not paying for any of that, the $3 Billion for the Carbon Capture comes from joint investment of Hitachi Canada, Hitachi Japan and Sask-Power.

 

[flacaltenn]

Freedom -

Do you here anyone out there advocating a word without electricity?

No, neither do I.

You are advocating for sources that ALL are intermittent and statistically volatile.

It's the engineering stupid...

Really?

How volatile is nuclear?

Honestly, the standard of debate on this fourm sometimes beggar belief.

We have one guy saying energy is allabout price - while advocating the most espensive form of energy we have.

We have another guy saying it is all about stability - while attacking the most stable form of energy we have.

What do you mean by volatile?? I was telling you that ALL YOUR sources are flaky, unreliable and can't be scheduled for delivery.. Nuclear is NONE of those. It's 24/7/366 reliable and always there. (except when re-fueling and generally, the plant has multiple reactors). It can power a home with only 0.7ounces of waste per year.

It is the cleanest, most reliable source of electricity that we have. What do you have that you can call "stable" and reliable???

 

[IanC]

flac- I concur. nuclear power may be a little more expensive but it make up for it by being stable and available when needed.

 

[eflatminor]

I don't like nuke joints, but I'm not ready to rule them out. I would like to see them built in remote locations, though.

You cannot built nuclear power plants in just any remote location. First, you need water to cool the reactor, so the middle of the desert isn't going to work. Secondly, you can't have endless miles of transmission lines carrying that generated electricity. This is because power is proportional to current but line loss is proportional to current squared. Line loss can be quite large over long distances, up to 30% or so. Make those lines too long and you'll end up with nothing more than a static spark by the time it reaches civilization.

 

[polarbear]

I don't like nuke joints, but I'm not ready to rule them out. I would like to see them built in remote locations, though.

You cannot built nuclear power plants in just any remote location. First, you need water to cool the reactor, so the middle of the desert isn't going to work. Secondly, you can't have endless miles of transmission lines carrying that generated electricity. This is because power is proportional to current but line loss is proportional to current squared. Line loss can be quite large over long distances, up to 30% or so. Make those lines too long and you'll end up with nothing more than a static spark by the time it reaches civilization.

True but only with qualifiers that You may not have considered. In Canada we probably have the longest transmission lines. Good example,all the way from the Nelson River system way into the United States which we also supply with power from there."Line loss" is reduced because we don`t use 60 cycle HV AC lines. Instead we transmit our power as HV DC...and then use converter stations. Nuclear power is almost as "portable" as can be when it comes to power plants. They don`t have to be near a river any more, although it`s more convenient if they are.

Iran is building a reactor at Arak, where it already has a heavy-water production plant

It does not matter what You want to call these, they all need cooling water an You know what happens if that is not available as was the case in Japan.
But we are way past the early stages where a nuclear power plant has to be near a large body of water or a river

Any large basin fed by "make-up" ground water will do since we have cooling towers:

 

[polarbear]

Just one more thing.
These $ "subsidies" that Obama and his no matter what reality is, supporters claim "big oil" is getting...That`s almost the same as if the New York or Philly Mobs would claim that they are "giving" downtown business or construction sites a subsidy if they quit extorting "protection" money from them for a week.
We need a sub thread to this one (Would You support renewable energy no matter what...) and call it "Would You support Obama no matter what reality is"
I hope Romney was wrong when he estimated that 47% of Americans will do so.

 

[westwall]

Freedom -

Do you here anyone out there advocating a word without electricity?

No, neither do I.

You are advocating for sources that ALL are intermittent and statistically volatile.

It's the engineering stupid...

Really?

How volatile is nuclear?

Honestly, the standard of debate on this fourm sometimes beggar belief.

We have one guy saying energy is allabout price - while advocating the most espensive form of energy we have.

We have another guy saying it is all about stability - while attacking the most stable form of energy we have.

Most expensive? On what planet do you live? Fossil fueled power plants are the cheapest by far to use after hydro. Natural gas powered plants are actually supplanting coal fired plants because they are so much cheaper...than COAL.

 

[westwall]

so you categprically oppose coal?

No, I don't.

Of course you don't!!

Your claim energy is all about price - and yet you advocate about the most expensive form of energy we have.

Coal = 112
Hydro = 89.9
Onshore wind = 96.8
Gothermal = 99.6

Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This must be beause you are a scientist.

Try using a reliable source. wiki is worthless as it is modifiable by any idiot pushing an agenda. Coal used to be the cheapest source for power plants, now it is natural gas.
Hydroelectric is indeed even cheaper than that but the enviro nazi's don't like dams anymore.

Below are the costs to generate electricity by type. The gas turbine and small scale includes wind and solar.



Nuclear 23.98
Fossil Steam 35.76
Hydroelectric 9.15
Gas Turbine and Small Scale 48.74



EIA - Electric Power Annual - Summary Statistics for the United States

 

[polarbear]

No, I don't.

Of course you don't!!

Your claim energy is all about price - and yet you advocate about the most expensive form of energy we have.

Coal = 112
Hydro = 89.9
Onshore wind = 96.8
Gothermal = 99.6

Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This must be beause you are a scientist.

Try using a reliable source. wiki is worthless as it is modifiable by any idiot pushing an agenda. Coal used to be the cheapest source for power plants, now it is natural gas.
Hydroelectric is indeed even cheaper than that but the enviro nazi's don't like dams anymore.

Below are the costs to generate electricity by type. The gas turbine and small scale includes wind and solar.



Nuclear 23.98
Fossil Steam 35.76
Hydroelectric 9.15
Gas Turbine and Small Scale 48.74



EIA - Electric Power Annual - Summary Statistics for the United States

You know that it`s not possible to have a sensible discussion with anyone who is pushing a left wing ( Obama) agenda which is based solely on spin doctoring, wise cracks (we don`t use bayonets any more) and reality distortions.
Like this "Wikipedia study" where "on shore solar" comes out at an "LEC" of 96.8 cheaper than coal. Anybody who wants to can write whatever he wants to at "Wikipedia" and the math is indicative where that one came from. Even real communists have more business sense than the left wing Obama democrats. If "on shore wind" were that much cheaper than coal fired power plants the Chinese Government would build windmill and solar farms instead of a new coal fired power plant at a rate of almost 1 per week. Unlike democrats not even the Communist Party of China is as self-delusional as the Obama Democrat voters. What China did do, is show Obama that they can make solar panels for U.S. greenhouse gas freaks more cost effective than Obama and Solyndra can....and if they wanted to windmills also...but aren`t anywhere near as dumb to penalize their coal industry with crippling enviro-taxes.
What the auto workers that Obama counts on after the bail out seem to forget, is that the coal industry Obama`s green democrats hate so much is also indispensable in steel manufacture. Not just in the furnace ( Yes I do know that Krupp in Germany is using electric furnaces) but also as an ingredient....and in the process when air is blasted through the molten "pig" a shit-load of CO2 etc is released. As if the energy sector would take that sitting down if coal power plants are penalized into near bankruptcy as Obama promised, while the steel industry does not get the same fines for doing what they are doing with the same coal. And after all is said and done we can try build high rise buildings with logs like during the settler days.
Talking about going back to the "old ways"...as Obama is accusing Romney.
It`s quite obvious to me that the dope he smoked as a student had some long lasting effects

 

[Politico]

No.

 

[flacaltenn]

flac- I concur. nuclear power may be a little more expensive but it make up for it by being stable and available when needed.

But Dude -- the planet has a fever and nuclear is a LOT cheaper than relocating the UN buildings to higher ground..